Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Service Corps (Recruitment)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for War if recruiting for the Royal Army Service Corps, the Royal Army Medical Corps, the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, the Royal' Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and other Service Corps has been proceeding at the same rate as recruiting for the infantry, artillery and armoured units.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): No, Sir. Only the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers are keeping up with the teeth arms. I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement on this subject in paragraphs 61 and 62 of the White Paper on Defend (Cmnd. 363).

Mr. Hall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the unsatisfactory recruiting figures for the Service Corps may be due to the fact that they appear to lack the glamour of the fighting arms of the Service? In his recruiting publicity, will my right hon. Friend draw attention to two points: first, that the most intelligent men are required for the Service Corps, because they are expected to train both as fighting soldiers and as tradesmen; and secondly, that the trade they learn while in the Army will stand them in very good stead when they leave to take up civilian jobs? If these two appeals are unsuccessful, will my right hon. Friend consider reintroducing corps pay?

Mr. Soames: It is, of course, too early yet to be able to know the success of the appeals, but I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Recruiting Marches, Cumberland (Scots Guards)

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for War why a Scottish regiment is to carry out a recruiting march in Cumberland on 17th and 18th March.

Mr. Soames: The regiment is the Scots Guards which, like the rest of the Brigade of Guards, draws its recruits from many parts of the United Kingdom. Scots Guards recruiting marches in Cumberland have been a regular feature since the end of the war. They are well known to the county and the march will be made with the full co-operation of the Border Regiment. The benefits of these marches are not confined to the regiment concerned. They bring forward recruits for the Army as a whole.

Mr. Vane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the county values the cooperation between the Border Regiment, the Scots Guards and other regiments which seem to adopt Cumberland as their second home and that nobody wants to disturb the recruiting organisation in Carlisle, which has done a lot of good for the whole Army and not least in attracting a number of recruits from the southward-moving stream of Scotsmen? On the other hand, operations on the scale of large Border raids seem to fall into a different category. If my right hon. Friend feels that I am exaggerating, will he look at the map and refresh his mind as to where the Border between England and Scotland runs?

Mr. Soames: I can confirm that the relationship between the Scots Guards and the Border Regiment is both very satisfactory and of long standing. In fact, at the invitation of the Border Regiment, the Scots Guards have a recruiting sergeant in the depot of that regiment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the probable reason for this is that, judging by the latest recruiting figures, the Scots Guards cannot collect soldiers in Scotland and are going across the Border to see whether they can get some stupid Englishmen?

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. That is not so.

Retirements

Colonel Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War, from the figures so far available, what percentage of officers


and other ranks, shown separately, will retire voluntarily as a result of the planned reduction in the size of the Army; and when he expects to be able to announce the final figures.

Mr. Soames: About 90 per cent. of the officers and 85 per cent. of the other ranks to be prematurely retired before 31st March, 1959, will be volunteers. The numbers to be retired after that will be decided annually, and until the final batch of applications has been received we shall not know the overall percentage of volunteers.

Colonel Beamish: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very comforting that it has not so far been necessary compulsorily to retire more than a very small number of officers and other ranks?

—
Oct., 1957–Jan., 1958
Oct., 1956–Jan., 1957
Oct., 1955–Jan., 1956



Enlisting for 6 years or more
Enlisting for less than 6 years
Enlisting for 6 years or more
Enlisting for less than 6 years
Enlisting for 6 years or more*
Enlisting for less than 6 years


October
…
645
1,223
298
3,141
0
2,545


November
…
1,021
406
259
2,560
7
2,280


December
…
889
328
191
1,963
1
1,961


January
…
1,647
603
235
2,902
0
3,220


TOTAL
…
4,202
2,560
983
10,566
8
10,006


*Before 1956 men were not normally permitted to enlist for more than three years.

Surplus Stores (Sales)

Mr. J. Eden: asked the Secretary of State for War how frequently sales of Government surplus stock are held by his Department; and to what extent financial loss is thus incurred.

Mr. Soames: In the United Kingdom. direct sales by Army depots are exceptional and take place only when the total stock to be sold is of not more than£500 in value. The great majority of disposals are arranged by the Ministry of Supply. Commands overseas are authorised to sell surplus stores by auction or competitive tender. The frequency of these sales depends upon the accumulation of stock. The stores are always sold for the best price obtainable.

Mr. Eden: Is it not possible for these sales to take place a little less frequently, perhaps by more moderate buying on the part of those who place orders for Army equipment? I am informed, for example,

Mr. Soames: I do, indeed. I hope it will remain so.

Recruitment

Colonel Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Regular recruits have enlisted in the Army in each of the last four months; how these figures compare with the same months one year and two years earlier; and how many of these recruits are on a six-year, or longer, engagement.

Mr. Soames: I will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the latest figures available of men's engagements, which are for the months of October to January.

Following is the table:

that a whole lot of Army pillowslips were sold the other day as surplus to requirement at a considerable loss. In addition, is not considerable harm caused to the normal trading of private traders when these vast quantities of stores are dumped on the local market? Can my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure as far as possible that the incidence of these sales is reduced and that immediately after the sales fresh stocks are not bought to replace what has just been sold?

Mr. Soames: When we have stocks to sell, we get in touch with the Ministry of Supply, which decides upon the timing of the actual sales. I am not cognisant of the question of the pillowslips, but if my hon. Friend would like to let me have details I will gladly look into it.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that supplementary questions will be worded more concisely than those we have had hitherto.
otherwise we shall never get on. This is unfair to hon. Members who have later Questions on the Paper.

Marriages

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War what general rules or regulations apply to soldiers serving overseas who desire to marry or do marry indigenous women; and how far on marriage those wives become entitled to the same privileges as British wives living with soldiers serving overseas.

Mr. Soames: There is no bar to such marriages, provided that they conform with the laws of the country in which they take place. To discourage ill-considered marriages, however, it is stipulated in these cases that a soldier must wait for a period of up to four months after informing his commanding officer of his intention to marry; and, of course, he must have his parents' consent if he is under 21. Once married, the soldier becomes entitled to marriage allowance and similar benefits on exactly the same terms as soldiers who have British wives. The rules about entitlement to a return passage to the United Kingdom were published in answer to the hon. Member on 11th December last year.

Mr. Sorensen: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether the same delaying period is applied to British girls as to indigenous girls?

Mr. Soames: This is designed in the best interests of everyone and to make sure that the British soldier gives adequate contemplation to the matter.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War what consideration has been given to the need for providing marriage guidance councils in areas, particularly in overseas stations, where there are large numbers of families of Service men, or of drawing attention to the availability of those councils where they exist in or near those areas.

Mr. Soames: Help and advice in matrimonial difficulties are available to forces overseas from local committees of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association. In this country, S.S.A.F.A. work closely with the marriage guidance council. The present arrangements work very well, and I do not think

that the provision of specially selected and trained staff in all our garrisons abroad would be justified.

Mr. Sorensen: Since marriage guidance councils have proved their value in this country, does it not follow that some of those who are engaged in marriage guidance councils possess a certain knowledge and equipment which might be useful overseas as well?

Mr. Soames: Undoubtedly they would be useful, but, for the reasons I have stated in my original Answer, we do not feel it would be right to have these specially selected people in all garrisons.

St. Kilda (Use)

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for War what are his plans for the future use of the island of St. Kilda.

Mr. Soames: The island of St. Kilda will be used as an observation post for the guided weapons firing range in the Hebrides.

Mr. MacMillan: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether it is still intended, despite the virtual abandonment of the rocket range, to make every possible provision for the troops and other personnel stationed on St. Kilda, including television, which was to have been provided for them?

Mr. Soames: We will certainly do everything we can to make life pleasant for them.

Mr. MacMillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my last point, namely, whether it is still intended to bring them television from the Londonderry and Northern Ireland area?

Mr. Soames: I could not say that without notice.

British Garrison, Berlin (Tactical Weapons)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent the British garrison in Berlin is armed with nuclear tactical weapons.

Mr. Soames: The British garrison in Berlin has no nuclear tactical weapons.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us will be


pleased to hear that, and so will the people of Berlin, because it will help to dispel the prospect of any side using nuclear tactical weapons in Berlin which would blow up a city which has already suffered enough?

Mr. Soames: I did not expect the hon. Gentleman to be displeased.

Private Cars, Germany (Petrol)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War how many soldiers in Germany with private cars get duty-free petrol; and what is the value of this concession.

Mr. Soames: There are 9,200 private cars in Germany belonging to the soldiers in B.A.O.R. They are all entitled to this concession which saves about 2s. 4d. a gallon on petrol. The concession is limited to a ration of about 20 gallons a month for a small car.

Mr. Lipton: Is there any similar restriction imposed upon the duty-free petrol which is to be issued to American troops in this country, and are they getting comparable treatment to that which we are getting from the German Government for our troops in Germany?

Mr. Soames: That is an entirely different question. This is an agreement reached between Her Majesty's Government and the German Government for our troops in Germany.

War Office (Generals)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War how many generals are employed in the War Office; and what was the number last year.

Mr. Soames: Forty, the same as last year.

Mr. Lipton: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain why, with all the cuts and the closing downs and the redundancies, the number of generals at the War Office is still the same? When will he tackle this rash of generals and bring about a proportionate reduction in that particular range of the stratosphere?

Mr. Soames: In fact the reorganisation and reductions in the Army impose a greater rather than a lesser burden on the administration in the War Office. There is, however, a plan for the gradual reduction of the staff of the War Office, and

there will be a reduction in the number of generals during the current year.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whilst during the transition that may be so, the numbers should in the end come down in proportion to the reduction of the Forces, which is considerable?

Mr. Soames: Certainly they will come down in the end, but we are entering into the second year of what the right hon. Gentleman calls the transitional period. As to the proportion by which they will come down, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is important to keep a sound promotion structure in the Army.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year when I put a similar Question to his predecessor the House was given the impression that he would reduce that number? In fact, I think he almost gave an undertaking. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously mean that he will reduce the establishment of senior officers of major-general rank in the War Office, because it is obvious that there is every opportunity to do so now that the Army is being cut?

Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir. The numbers will be reduced over the period of years of the run-down of the Army.

Recruiting Advertisements

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. MAUDE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to certain recruiting advertisements referring to Her Majesty's land Forces as "The New Model Army" whether he is satisfied that this title is appropriate in view of the facts that the original Force of this name was largely recruited by the press gang, fought against and executed its Sovereign, forcibly interferred with the privileges of Parliament, and established a military dictatorship in England; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. C. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer you to Question No. 12 and ask if it is in order for an hon. Member to put down a Question which is a travesty of historical facts?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) has not asked the Question. Dame Irene Ward.

Widows (Pensions)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) on what basis widows of warrant officers and other ranks at present receive pensions on a lower scale than the National Insurance pension, having regard to recent increases in this pension without additional contributions; on what principles it was decided that Service widows should not have a comparable increase for the same reasons which governed the increase in the National Insurance pension; and if he will take appropriate action;
(2) on what basis widows of officers of certain ranks at present receive pensions on a lower scale than the National Insurance pension and below, in some instances, the National Assistance scale, having regard to recent increases in these rates of benefit without additional contributions from the beneficiaries; and if he will give an assurance that an appropriate increase on the same basis of calculation will be given to officers' widows.

Mr. Soames: I will, with permission, answer Question Nos. 13 and 14 together.

Dame Irene Ward: No.

Mr. Soames: The rates of all Service pensions are reviewed from time to time. The rates of Service widows' pensions are related to the rank and service of the husband, and may be drawn in addition to National Insurance widows' pensions.

Dame Irene Ward: Yes, but that does not always apply to those who are too old to have contributed to the National Insurance Scheme, so may I, on the first Question, ask my right hon. Friend why it is that money is being paid from the Treasury to balance the fund and why other widows should not be able to get equal benefit from the Treasury? In regard to officers' wives, is my right hon. Friend aware that the basic pension was not increased for 100 years? Why, therefore, should they have had only one increase when everyone else has had a large number of increases?

Mr. Soames: As my hon. Friend knows well, Service pensions are an inter-Service matter.' I am afraid I have

nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence said to the hon. Lady last month in answer to a Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION

Cinematograph Films

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Postmaster-General (1) what notice he has given to the Independent Television Authority under Section 9 (2) of the Television Act, 1954, regarding transmissions between the hours of 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. of cinematograph films originally produced for showing in cinemas, and the proportion of such films which must be of British origin;
(2) what notice he has given to the British Broadcasting Corporation under Section 15 (4) of the Licence and Agreement regarding transmissions between the hours of 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. of cinematograph films originally produced for showing in cinemas, and the proportion of such films which must be of British origin.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): None, Sir.

Sir L. Plummer: The Minister is aware of the difficult conditions now existing in the British film industry, so will he not now consider discussing with both of the bodies the advisability of encouraging British films on television at the expense of old American films with a view to improving the conditions in the British film industry?

Mr. Marples: I do not think that cinema films which are shown on television are necessarily the only competition which the cinema has to face. Other items on television, such as boxing and perhaps Soccer, are a greater attraction to people, and I think the public should have a free choice of their own.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: In view of the shortage of dollars, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time a limit was put on the number of American films shown by both the B.B.C. and I.T.A.? Cannot he use his powers to stop this?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman should remember that this is a two-way traffic. Not only are the American films


for which we pay dollars shown here, but the Americans show British films for which they pay dollars, and any action we might take of a drastic nature here might provoke action which might, on balance, prove adverse to us.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that there is a probable run-down of British film production due to the situation which is developing on the exhibiting side? Would not this act as a stimulant to British film production?

Mr. Marples: I am not responsible for the cinema industry. I am responsible for the operation of the Television Act. If the hon. Member has any question in mind on the cinema industry, it should be put down to the President of the Board of Trade

Public Relations Officers

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has for prescribing regulations or directions under Section 4 (6, e) or Section 9 (2) of the Television Act relating to matters requiring the appearance of Government Department public relations officers on television programmes.

Mr. Marples: None, Sir.

Mr. Ness Edwards: In view of the Answer given yesterday and the Answer given now, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the undesirability of interposing civil servants between the Minister and the public?

Mr. Marples: The Prime Minister said yesterday that he would look into the question of the appearance of public relations officers on television, and I think we had better await the result of that inquiry.

Reception, Swindon

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Postmaster-General what further steps he will take to lessen interference with television reception in the Swindon area.

Mr. Marples: The general position remains as stated in answers given to the hon. Member on 21st and 22nd January. In a current case, in which the hon. Member is interested, the firm whose

apparatus is causing some interference intends to replace it by apparatus of an improved design. This will inevitably take some time, but the firm are cooperating with us in interim measures to minimise the trouble.

Mr. Noel-Baker: While thanking the Postmaster-General for that Answer, if I give him the complaints of 450 people which have reached me since the Question was put down, will he look into them? Would he like to express his thanks, which I am sure are due to the very co-operative firm which he mentioned in his Answer?

Mr. Marples: I am certain that the firm will co-operate; it has shown every desire so to do. I think that the complaints which the hon. Member has received have largely been the result of a letter inserted in a local newspaper asking for complaints, not, I agree, by the hon. Member himself, but I think by a man who has some connection with his local party.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is about time that there was full implementation of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, which was introduced by the Labour Administration and would put an end to a tremendous amount of this interference to both television and V.H.F. reception?

Mr. Marples: I shall be grateful to receive any suggestion from the hon. Member on any step which he thinks we can take. The difficulty in this case is technical rather than administrative.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sure the Postmaster-General did not wish to imply that there was any political angle to this problem. I assure him that there is not. Is he aware that large numbers of listeners, irrespective of party politics, have been very much concerned with this matter and will appreciate the help that he and others can give in it?

Mr. Marples: We shall give all the help we can. We shall look into any genuine complaint, from whichever party it comes. All I was saying was that the complaints were encouraged by a certain letter which appeared in a newspaper asking for complaints to be sent in.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Robert Burns Bi-centenary

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he will honour the bi-centenary in January, 1959, of Robert Burns by the issue of a form of greetings telegram explicity designed to commemorate that event.

Mr. Marples: The future place of the telegraph service in our communications system is at present under review by the Advisory Committee whose appointment I announced last December. I expect their Report in a few weeks, and meantime I think that a decision on the hon. and learned Member's suggestion should be held over.

Mr. Hughes: Does that mean that there are some prospects of such a deferred greetings telegram being issued in the near future?

Mr. Marples: No. The whole question will be held over until the Report is received.

Postage Stamps

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he will State the principles which have guided his Department in deciding the design and time of issue of new designs of postage stamps during the last fifty years; how, and how often, those principles and their implementation have varied during those years; and what those principles now are.

Mr. Marples: The principles have been and still are to maintain the Monarch's head as the basic feature of our stamps; to make new issues for each reign; and, since 1924, occasionally to issue special stamps to mark current events of outstanding significance and notable Royal or postal anniversaries.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that other nations in the Commonwealth have introduced the heads of famous figures on stamps, without in any way interfering with the Sovereign's head? Why stick to antediluvian methods?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Marples: I am not responsible for stamps issued in the Commonwealth.

Secondly, I must reiterate that the principle on which stamps are issued in this country is that the Monarch's head should be the principal feature.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister understand plain English? Does he not understand that I am not making any attempt to exclude the Monarch's head from the Post Office stamps but suggesting that the two features can be combined?

Mr. Marples: Some feature is the dominating feature, and in this case it is the Monarch's head. I am not certain that all the people who have been famous in history would necessarily make a good combination with the present Monarch's head.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that for many years Her Majesty's Government have declined to celebrate by the issue of special postage stamps British citizens famous in literature, art, sport and other forms of human endeavour, and that other nations have shown, by their practice, that they do not refuse to honour their famous citizens in this way; and if he will appoint a cultural committee to consider the relevant problems and make recommendations.

Mr. Marples: I am satisfied that the policy of the Post Office in this matter is sound, and I see no need for a committee of the kind the hon. and learned Member suggests.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Postmaster-General realise that his objection to consulting educated people is unworthy of the Postmaster-General of a civilised country like Britain?

Mr. Marples: I cannot accept that statement. I consult a large number of educated people on the Post Office Advisory Council, including some hon. Members opposite, who I presume are educated.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he will issue a special stamp to commemorate the trans-Antarctic journey of Dr. Fuchs.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the rather flimsy reason which he


gave for the rejection of the Burns stamp do not apply to a stamp to commemorate the feat of Dr. Fuchs? Is he aware that the Monarch's head can be combined with a suitable design, as was done in the case of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference? When, other countries would rush to honour their great people in this way, does he not think it is time that he revised these ideas of the Post Office?

Mr. Marples: We have a very full stamp programme. This year there are twelve new regional stamps, one of which is for the country which has the honour to have the hon. Member as one of its citizens. We also have three stamps for the Empire Games. We are producing more than we have ever produced before. If we are to single out every achievement, where should we stop?—climbing Everest, or running the mile in less than four minutes? There must be some point at which it is possible to decide to issue a stamp.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Gerrards Cross and Chalfont St. Giles

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Postmaster-General when a public telephone kiosk will be erected in Fulmer Drive, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire.

Mr. Marples: This kiosk is nearly ready and should be working in a few days.

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Postmaster-General how many people are waiting for telephone connection to the Gerrards Cross and Chalfont St. Giles, Buckinghamshire, telephone exchanges, respectively; and how many, in each case, have been waiting for more than six months.

Mr. Marples: The figures are 226 for Gerrards Cross and 127 for Chalfont St. Giles; 138 and 87, respectively, have been waiting for more than six months This year we expect to install about 110 telephones in Gerrards Cross and 120 in Chalfont St. Giles.

Mr. Bell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many subscribers in these two

areas have been waiting for as long as two or three years for telephone connections? Can he not improve the position in that district?

Mr. Marples: On the whole, the position is very satisfactory. One or two isolated cases may be difficult, but generally speaking the position in the area is satisfactory.

Mr. Ronald Bell: s asked the Postmaster-General when he proposes to lay new cables so as to be able to meet the demand for telephones in the Gerrards Cross, Chalfont St. Peter and Chalfont St. Giles areas of South Buckinghamshire.

Mr. Marples: The duct work is due to start in a few days. Cabling work will follow, and the new cables will be brought into use progressively. But it is a big job and it will be the end of next year before we can finish it.

Waxlow and Perivale

Mr. Barter: asked the Postmaster-General what is the extent of the waiting list for telephones on the Waxlow and Perivale exchanges, respectively; and when he anticipates being able to provide services for those still waiting.

Mr. Marples: The outstanding applications on 1st January were 312 at Waxlow and 580 at Perivale, of which 55 and 300, respectively, were under inquiry or in course of being met. I cannot say when service will be provided for all the outstanding applicants, but we expect to join up this year about 1,000 telephones in these two areas.

Calls (Charges)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give an assurance that for five years ahead the flat rate charge for telephone calls recently introduced in the London area will not be discarded.

Mr. Marples: The enlarged local call area is an essential first step towards the goal of full automation, described in Cmnd. 303. I am therefore confident that this system has come to stay. But the actual charge for a call within the local call area will need to be reviewed from time to time.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean a review in the direction of lower charges


or in the direction of higher charges? Is it not necessary to try to stabilise them for a period?

Mr. Marples: They will be reviewed depending on what it costs to produce a call. I cannot commit any future Postmaster-General.

Rhenigidal, Isle of Harris

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Postmaster-General when a telephone service will be provided for the community of Rhenigidal, Isle of Harris.

Mr. Marples: By the end of June, a radio link is being provided between a public call office at Rhenigidal and the mainland.

Mr. MacMillan: Will the Postmaster-General accept our thanks and congratulations to the Post Office on its persistent and very gallant efforts to bring a telephone service to one of the remotest and smallest communities in the Western Isles?

Mr. Marples: With the greatest of pleasure.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Flying Personnel Research Committee

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what link there is between the Flying Personnel Research Committee and those concerned with the medical aspects of long-range high altitude civil flying.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing): The Chairman of the Flying Personnel Research Committee has been associated with civil aviation for the past ten years, and the Committee keeps in close touch with civil flying problems. These do not differ essentially from the problems presented by military flying.
Subject to considerations of security, Committee papers dealing with the medical aspects of both civil and military flying are circulated to civil aviation interests. Both the Committee and the Institute of Aviation Medicine are ready to give additional information or advice at any time.

Mr. de Freitas: Although there is this link between civil and military flying, will the Under-Secretary consider whether, with the increased importance of high altitude long-range civil aviation, the composition of the Committee today is sufficiently representative? Will he reconsider his reply to see whether it was not deliberately constructed to avoid dealing with high altitude long-range flying?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: My right hon. Friend will look at it, but I think that the Committee is doing excellent work and that there is no good reason for changing its membership at the moment.

Wartling Camp

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of National Service men stationed at Wartling Royal Air Force camp who have enlisted in the Regular Force during the past twelve months.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: One, Sir. In addition 31 Regular airmen decided to undertake further service.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman surprised that only one National Service man in the course of twelve months has enlisted in the Regular Force? Is not that due to the lack of encouragement in this camp, the petty restrictions, and the fact that the Air Force owns a piggery with 350 pigs adjacent to the camp where National Service men are frequently on guard? Does he regard those conditions as encouraging to men to join the Regular Force?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Naturally, we would like to see more National Service men signing on, but it is some indication that conditions at that station cannot be too unsatisfactory that 31 Regular airmen have signed on during that same period for extended service, which is double the national average.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures are unsatisfactory inasmuch as the Service is obviously not making one-quarter of the appeal to National Service men which it is making to Regulars? In view of the numbers, 31 and one, which he quoted, does he not think that he should make some inquiries to find out what is offending National Service men?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: If a National Service man intends to sign on for a short Regular engagement he generally does so very early in his service, and thus gets an increased choice of trades and increased pay, so that when National Service men join the Regular Force they do so before getting to an operational station such as Wartling.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many men at Wart-ling camp have been put on a charge since the beginning of 1958.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Up to the end of February, sixteen.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the hon. Gentleman regard that as rather excessive? Is he aware of the conditions in this camp and of the fact that the officers in charge take a very casual interest in the welfare of the men and that all kinds of restrictions are imposed on the men? Is it not an absolute disgrace that the Secretary of State for Air does not occupy his mind with matters of that sort when he wants to build up the Regular Force?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The figures are in no way exceptional. Over the previous two months 28 airmen were charged, and in September and October 13 airmen were charged. That is about the average throughout the command concerned. As recruiting to the Regular Force is very good on this station, I do not think there can be very much wrong.

Mr. P. Williams: Can my hon. Friend give an estimate of the number of airmen serving on the station?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is 361, if my memory serves me right.

Mr. Shinwell: is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he maintains this argument that there is nothing wrong at this camp he is in for a very great deal of trouble, not only from the men concerned but from some people in this House?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I did not say that there was nothing wrong with the camp. I said that there could not be anything basically wrong if large numbers of men on the camp are undertaking Regular engagements. I should be delighted, as would my right hon. Friend, to look into any specific complaints. The right hon. Gentleman has, in fact, written a letter,

with which my Department is dealing, and he will receive an answer on the detailed matters he has put before us.

Nuclear Weapons (Transport)

Mr. Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is satisfied there can be no serious accident resulting from towing hydrogen bombs on public thoroughfares; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: When nuclear weapons are moved by road they are broken down into components, and the special nuclear components are carried separately. Further special precautions are taken, and my right hon. Friend and I are satisfied that there is no risk of a serious accident.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister positive that there can he no radioactive contamination following an accident? Was it not only by accident that it leaked out that there were planes patrolling with H-bombs, and has it not now leaked out by accident that these things are being towed along the main roads? What next? Is this secrecy due to the Government knowing that the British people are opposed to increasing risks being taken?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I cannot go into details, but specially trained Service personnel always travel with these weapon components and are capable of dealing with any incidents which may arise. I think the House will agree that it is not in the general interest so to identify these convoys that potential enemies of this country might be able to trace the movement of these weapons.

Mr. Mason: This is a serious matter which is causing some concern. Can the hon. Member develop his reply a little and state what special methods are used for moving these atom bombs? Are they at any time used on British Railways?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not a fact that some hon. Members opposite are considerably more "windy" than those whom they represent?

Mr. de Freitas: The Under-Secretary referred to the security aspect about where these bombs were. Will he therefore insist that, when officers are called into court on cases involving them, they


will not say in public that these men are employed on dragging hydrogen bombs to certain definite stations?

Retirements

Colonel Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Air from the figures so far available, what percentage of officers and other ranks, shown separately, will retire voluntarily as a result of the planned reduction in the size of the Royal Air Force; and when he expects to be able to announce the final figures.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Rather more than 90 per cent. of the airmen whose retirement has been approved had applied under the scheme. It has not so far been necessary to retire any officers who have not applied. The redundancy scheme is being operated in phases, and I cannot yet say when it will be possible to give final figures.

Guided Missiles (Anglo-American Liaison)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air in what way liaison will be maintained between the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force in the supply, maintenance and operation of missiles.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: So far as supply and maintenance are concerned, we shall adapt existing links between various agencies both in the United States and in the United Kingdom. On the question of operating these missiles, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence told the House on 24th February.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Under-Secretary aware that when what he told us is read in the light of what an American officer in Washington said, it does not make sense, and that even after the publication of the missile agreement the Americans were under the impression that they had operational control? Will he not give us some idea about how we exercise operational control in co-operation with the American Air Force?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence made it clear that there would be joint operational control, and also made it clear that the statement made in the United States concerned the

installation and not the operation of these weapons.

Mr. de Freitas: This is an important matter. The colonel in question referred specifically to operations. It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to say what he did, but cannot he give us some idea of how the arrangement will work?

South Uist (Roads)

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Air what new roads have been constructed, or reconstructed, what road works are now being carried out, and what road schemes are to be abandoned by his Department in the area of the South Uist Guided Missiles Range and training ground.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: About 5½miles of the road from Loch Carnan to Greagorry have been reconstructed. No other road works have been put in hand. We had planned to build a new loop road to the firing site from the Loch Boisdale-Benbecula Road—A.865—with a causeway across Loch Bee. It will now be possible, however, to manage simply with a spur to the southern end of the firing site. This will be provided by improving and extending the existing road through West Geirinish village.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that one of the considerations that induced the Inverness County Council and other local authorities to withdraw their objections to the rocket range in the first place was that the Ministry undertook to make good any dislocation of plans relating to roads, water supplies and schools for the local and new incoming population but that the Ministry has now abruptly pulled out and abandoned the range, completely dislocating the planning of that area in the matter of water supplies, roads and so on, without making any compensation to the local authorities in respect of it? Will he and the Secretary of State for Scotland consult the Departments concerned to see that these plans and schemes are brought up to date?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Perhaps the hon. Member will write to my right hon. Friend giving details of the dislocations which he feels have taken place. We will certainly examine them most carefully.

"Operation Quickstep"

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has now considered public comments on the conclusions to be drawn from "Operation Quickstep" regarding the inadequacy of present arrangements for transporting troops by air; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: "Operation Quickstep" was a joint R.A.F.-Army air mobility exercise, primarily intended to test the organisation required for moving part of the Strategic Reserve at short notice. Only four Hastings, four Beverleys and one Comet were used. The exercise was in no way designed to call on the full resources of Transport Command and of the air transport forces in overseas theatres which would rapidly be made available in emergency. As I emphasised on Monday, the total airlift available from military aircraft has almost doubled since 1951, and a further large increase is planned. In addition there is considerable civil capacity which could be used for troop movement if required.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the misunderstandings which seem to have been created by this operation, will the Under-Secretary see that publicity is given as to its real purpose?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am most grateful that the hon. Member should have put down a Question which directs publicity to the fact that this was a limited operation with a very limited force and using mixed aircraft. We chose to do it at short notice and in one of the most difficult months of the year. That is a true test of operational capability.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

London Airport (F.I.D.O.)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he is now taking with regard to the installation of F.I.D.O. at London Airport.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 11th December last. The experiment at an R.A.F. aerodrome is now expected to begin in April or May; it will last for some months.

Mr. Beswick: I pay tribute to the interest which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is showing in this matter, but is he aware that for eight years I have been told that new experiments are in hand, and that the cost of diversion and delay is mounting? Can he say when he hopes to do something about this matter?

Mr. Neave: I regret the delay in this matter, but there has been great difficulty in obtaining the specialised equipment for these experiments. We hope that in four or six months we shall have the information that we require in order to enable us to take a decision.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is it not a fact that within the eight years referred to by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation for at least two years?

Mr. Beswick: As a matter of fact, eight years ago the hon. Member was demanding that the equipment should be installed in the winter of 1951. Since then he seems to be quite content that diversions continue.

Rearward-facing Seats

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what advice he has received from the Air Registration Board with regard to the installation of rearward-facing seats in civil aircraft; and what action he is now taking in this matter.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The Air Registration Board has advised me that on present evidence there are insufficient grounds for making rearward-facing seats compulsory. It has, however, recommended that, where practicable, such seats should be provided. This reflects current international opinion and I agree with it.

Mr. Beswick: The question now arises as to what the right hon. Gentleman is doing about it. Here we have a situation in which the Air Registration Board says that it would be safer if passengers were seated in rearward-facing seats, and the Royal Air Force have already adopted this suggestion. Is it not difficult to explain why, as the Minister responsible for safety, he is not acting upon this recommendation?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not find it at all difficult to explain. The answer is that all modern aircraft will be so constructed—and this is my responsibility—that seats can face either forward or rearward as the operating companies so desire. The Air Registration Board has said that there was not a clear case, on safety grounds, for making rearward-facing seats mandatory, and I agree.

Mr. Beswick: But is it not a fact that the Board said that the reason why this should not be made mandatory was not on grounds of safety but for commercial considerations? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied to leave this matter to be settled upon commercial considerations and not on safety grounds?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not think that that reflects the advice which the Board has given me. If it were to give firm advice that this must be done and that the safety differential was so great that it should be done, it would be a different matter.

Mr. Langford-Holt: It may be that my right hon. Friend and the Board are not satisfied that rearward-facing seats should be mandatory, but will he bear in mind that many people are so satisfied? Will he consider making it compulsory that at any rate a proportion of seats face in a rearward direction?

Mr. Watkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, in most modern British aircraft that is so.

Accidents

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many air accidents involving civil airliners are currently being investigated by his Department; and what was the date of the first of these accidents.

Mr. Watkinson: Six accidents to transport type aircraft are currently under investigation in the United Kingdom. Three involved aircraft engaged in ordinary passenger transport. One concerned an aircraft on scheduled freight operations. The other two aircraft were a Heron on an ambulance flight and a Britannia on a development flight. The earliest of these accidents was on 28th September, 1957. Four accidents to United Kingdom registered transport type aircraft are currently under investigation by overseas authorities.

Mr. Beswick: The Minister will be aware that I am not trying to direct attention to the fact that there have been a number of accidents. I am dealing with the point that the staff at his disposal is not now adequate to deal with the number of accidents that are likely to occur, with the increased amount of traffic within his responsibility. In view of the complacency which he displayed when I raised this matter last time, may I ask him how many additional people with technical qualifications have been added to his safety and accident investigation branches in the last seven or eight years?

Mr. Watkinson: If the hon. Member wants an answer to that question, he had better put it down. As for saying that I am complacent, I have already given the date. The oldest outstanding accident occured on 28th September last year, and the hon. Member knows from his own practical experience in the past that the proper investigation of these accidents must take a considerable time. It is nonsense to say that my Department is not capable of coping with the situation.

Southampton Airport

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what representations he has received from Southampton Chamber of Commerce on the future of Southampton Airport, Eastleigh; and whether he has yet reached a conclusion about the future of that airport.

Mr. Neave: My right hon. Friend has recently received a letter from the Southampton Chamber of Commerce expressing concern about the effect of proposed railway developments on the future of the airport. A technical study of this complicated matter was already well advanced, and I intend to hold further consultations with interested parties, including the Southampton Corporation, as soon as possible.

Mr. Howard: May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply on a subject to which I know he has given considerable personal attention and ask him to speed up this matter? Does not he agree that without a hard runway there is no future for this airport?

Mr. Neave: I will do my best to speed up the discussions. My hon. Friend already knows that the problem of the


construction of the new marshalling yards at Eastleigh at one end of the aerodrome raises a technical difficulty.

Dr. King: Will the Minister bear in mind that Southampton Airport is of great potential value to the economy, not only of Southampton but of Southern England, and that it should be possible to carry out the developments proposed at Eastleigh if the rail were diverted slightly to allow the airport to remain for subsequent development?

Mr. Neave: I will bear that in mind, and the hon. Member may be assured that we are trying to solve this problem as soon as possible.

Accident, Munich (Inquiries)

Mr. Royle: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, when all the inquiries into the Munich air disaster are completed, he will make a further statement.

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the cause of the accident to the Elizabethan aircraft of British European Airways at Munich on Thursday. 6th February.

Mr. Watkinson: I cannot make a statement until I have received the report of the German authorities.

Mr. Royle: May I say that there is no intention to embarrass anybody with this Question? In view of the fact that the German authorities will issue no report and that B.E.A. will not issue a report of its private inquiries, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would relieve a lot of anxiety, particularly in my part of the country, if a statement could be made?

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps it would help if I said what I think will happen, although the House will appreciate that this is the responsibility of the German Government and not my responsibility. I have seconded a senior inspector of accidents to be an observer at the German commission of inquiry. I assume, I think rightly, that the report of that commission will be submitted to me—that I shall be given a copy of it. I will then, in consultation with the German authorities, certainly consider

the question of publishing it. I am most anxious that the fullest information about this accident should be made public.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House when he expects to receive a report from the German authorities?

Mr. Watkinson: I am in the hands of the German authorities, and their inquiries are very painstaking and detailed. But they know my wish is that it should be done as soon as they can conveniently do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Tyne Tunnel

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he now has any statement to make on the Tyne Tunnel.

Mr. Watkinson: I am now prepared to consider for authorisation in the next financial year the scheme proposed by the County Councils of Northumberland and Durham, and I am writing to them to this effect.
The scheme provides for a vehicular tunnel with a two-lane carriageway and approach roads to connect with the Gateshead-Sunderland trunk road and the Newcastle-Tynemouth road. The scheme is estimated to cost about£13 million, of which I expect that 75 per cent, will be met from central funds. Tolls will be charged.
I hope that it will be possible to begin work soon after the scheme has been authorised.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend accept through me the appreciation of the people of the North-East Coast that this decision has now been taken? Would I be right in assuming that this decision is an expression of the confidence of the Government in the future prosperity of the North-East Coast as a whole?

Mr. Watkinson: Certainly. This tunnel is necessary because of the view we take of the developments in industry and commerce which are likely to take place in that part of the world.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I think that the Minister said that tolls would be charged


for the use of this tunnel. This is a departure from the present policy. [HON MEMBERS: "Question."] Will the Minister allow Parliament to debate this matter before a final decision upon tolls is taken?

Mr. Watkinson: That is not so. I think that it was at least six months ago—and probably more—that I stated my policy quite clearly, which was that all new large bridge and tunnel schemes would have to bear tolls in order that their costs might not be inflationary.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that everyone in the North-East will be happy to hear his answer? Can he say how long the work will take and, on the question of tolls, whether there was full consultation with the local authorities?

Mr. Watkinson: There will be full consultation with the authorities concerned upon the question of tolls. I hope that the work will start in the next financial year—1958–59. As all hon. Members know, it is a very big task, and it would be unwise for me to give a firm completion date. It will obviously take several years to complete the task.

Mr. Popplewell: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members on this side of the House who represent constituencies in the North-East associate themselves with what was said by the hon. Lady about this announcement being welcomed by the whole of the North-East? Is he aware that there is a wide divergence of opinion over the question of tolls, and will he enter into consultations in the House before pledging himself on this matter? In the meantime, we are delighted that the tunnel will be started next year?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not think there is any misunderstanding about this. I have told local authorities who came to see me, not only about this project but about the Severn Bridge and other projects of a similar nature, that these works, under present circumstances, can be carried out only if tolls are charged. I am satisfied that local authorities accept this as a general principle. Negotiations about amounts must of course be carried out.

Mr. Gower: As my right hon. Friend has now authorised the commencement of work on two or three schemes which

formerly ranked behind the Severn Bridge crossing in priority, will he give an assurance that he will authorise that project without delay?

Mr. Watkinson: My hon. Friend is wrong. As was made plain by my predecessor, the Tyne Tunnel was the next large project that would be authorised.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that in October, 1947, an answer was given in this House indicating that the Severn Bridge had top priority—I remember it very well, because I gave the answer? May I ask the Minister what has happened? With these schemes now coming on, why is the Severn project lagging so far behind?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that what happened is obvious to every hon. Member. These priorities are being examined carefully, and I am satisfied that the next big scheme to put in hand is the Tyne Tunnel, which is why I have just announced it.

Staines By-pass

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement about the timetable for the work on the Staines by-pass.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) on 4th March.

Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he is satisfied, in view of the serious nature of the situation at Staines, that suitable progress is being made? Does he appreciate it is highly important that the matter should be dealt with as speedily as possible?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, I am satisfied that we are making good progress with this scheme, and it will not be long before construction starts.

Schemes, South Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in order to meet the particular problems of South Wales, he will expedite the chief road schemes already approved, including the Ross Spur project and the Aberavon By


pass; and if he will advance the date for the Head of the Valleys road scheme.

Mr. Watkinson: I inaugurated the construction of the Ross Spur on 3rd March. Work is well advanced on the Neath By-pass, and we are proceeding as quickly as possible with the necessary preliminary work on the Aberavon Bypass and the Heads of the Valleys Road.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Driving Test Centres

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will review the number of centres arranged for driving tests; whether he is satisfied that people in country districts do not have to travel undue distances in order to take the test; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nugent: We keep the number of driving test centres under continuous review to ensure that a satisfactory service is provided. If the test is to be conducted efficiently and cheaply, these centres must be sited in towns, which inevitably means travelling for those living in the country. I will, however, gladly look at any particular problem my hon. Friend may have in mind.

Mr. Vane: Will my hon. Friend examine the particular circumstances of my constituency where it is possible, I believe, for people to live forty-five or more miles away from such a centre, which can cause them great inconvenience and expense, particularly if they do not pass the test the first time?

Mr. Nugent: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any exceptional geographical difficulties, I will gladly examine them.

Working Hours (Staggering)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the full report of the first year's work of the committee conducting the campaign for the staggering of working hours in Central London will be published.

Mr. Nugent: On 2nd April.

Mr. Davies: May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for saying that the report is eventually to be issued, and ask

whether he regrets that it has not been possible to publish it earlier, as the Committee has been sitting for a considerable time? May I ask whether the work of the Committee is continuing and whether the Minister would consider asking that some element of compulsion be introduced regarding schemes for staggering working hours in view of the comparatively poor response?

Mr. Nugent: The work of this Committee is continuing, and we regard it as important to try to relieve the problem caused by pressure of traffic. My right hon. Friend and I will be meeting the Committee shortly to discuss ways of staggering working hours.

Vehicle Design (Safety)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether his attention has been drawn to the Cornell-Liberty Safety Car which has been built in the United States of America and which incorporates many new features designed to minimise injuries in the event of accidents; and what steps he is taking to promote similar ideas in this country.

Mr. Nugent: I have asked for information about this demonstration vehicle. A great deal of attention is at the present time being given both nationally and internationally to vehicle design aimed to minimise injuries in the event of accidents.

Driving and Traffic Examiners

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many driving and traffic examiners are now employed full-time on enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts; and how far short this number falls of the establishment required for effective enforcement of the Acts.

Mr. Watkinson: 102 driving and traffic examiners are at present employed full-time on enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts. The approved establishment comprises 100 examiners permanently on enforcement and as many others as can from time to time be released from driving-test duties. As I told the hon. Member on 18th December, I am recruiting more examiners and, when fewer driving tests are outstanding, the number of enforcement officers should be sufficient.

Mr. Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman hurry the scheme for recruitment of more officers in view of the very large amount of infringement of traffic Acts, of which proof is forthcoming daily and weekly in the Press? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the numbers at present are able to do more than a very small proportion of the necessary work?

Mr. Watkinson: We are shortly holding another competition for examiners. We hope that that will increase the numbers. I quite agree that probably, however many examiners we had, we could not investigate every evasion, but before very long we should be able to tighten up considerably the operation of the Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Accident, Dagenham

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will state the result of the inquiry into the recent Dagenham train accident.

Mr. Watkinson: The Inspecting Officer's investigations are not yet complete.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Suez Canal

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that six United Kingdom ships grounded in the Suez Canal during the last six months; and what information he has as to whether these or other accidents were due to silting up of the canal or other obstructions of the waterway.

Mr. Neave: I have made inquiries into these groundings, but there is no definite information to show that the condition of the canal contributed to any of them.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the Suez Canal is now controlled by a Government with which Her Majesty's Government are not in diplomatic relations and contrary to international agreement, can my hon. Friend state what are the arrangements for informing British shipmasters of conditions and possible dangers in the Canal?

Mr. Neave: I do not think I can embark on a discusion of that aspect of the matter, but if my hon. Friend will put down a Question dealing with the point I shall be glad to answer it.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

European Economic Union and Free Trade Area

Mr. Ridsdale: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 28th March, I shall call attention to the urgent need to complement the European Economic Union by a Free Trade Area to include all members of O.E.E.C., and move a Resolution.

Science (Application to Industry)

Mr. Prentice: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 28th March, I shall call attention to the need for greater application of science to industry and move a Resolution.

Central Europe (Disengagement)

Mr. Rankin: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 28th March, I shall call attention to the need for a Western initiative for the disengaging of hostile forces in Central Europe, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

PHYSICAL TRAINING AND RECREATION

3.33 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for loans to be made by local authorities for physical training and recreation in Great Britain.
The Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, made it possible for grants to be paid by local authorities to voluntary organisations, and, in particular, to those associated with athletic, social and educational objects. Experience has shown that although very valuable contributions were made in the form of grants, loans were not permitted. I am advised that a number of local authority associations, in particular the National Association of Parish Councils, wish to take advantage of opportunities to make loans which they are now precluded from doing, and which the proposed Bill would enable them to do.
There are cases where only a small part of an area by which rates are borne would benefit by a new project. Therefore, it might be more appropriate for a loan to be made to complete the voluntary contributions which have been given, and to be subsequently paid back.
It is with these ideas in mind that I seek leave to introduce the Bill, which is supported by a number of local government associations, including the County Council's Association, the Urban District and Rural District Councils' Associations, the National Playing Fields Association, the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland and the District Councils' Association for Scotland.
The Bill also has the support of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on Opposition benches as well as on the Government side of the House. It does not seek to make drastic changes, but to remedy a small detail in the situation which I have described.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Spencer Summers, Mr. Woodburn, Miss Burton, Mr. George, Sir Jocelyn Lucas, Mr. MacColl, Mr. Peart, and Sir Wavell Wakefield.

PHYSICAL TRAINING AND RECREATION

Bill to make provision for loans to be made by local authorities for physical training and recreation in Great Britain, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

RENT ACT, 1957 (AMENDMENT) (REPAIRS AND RENT)

3.37 p.m.

Miss Alice Bacon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to simplify and expedite the procedure for securing repairs of rent-controlled dwelling-houses; to shorten the time allowed for the performance of landlords' undertakings; to apply sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 7 of the First Schedule to the Rent Act, 1957, in all cases where a certificate of disrepair is granted or a landlord's undertaking is not fulfilled, irrespective of the date of service of any notice of increase, and to repeal sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph; to make it an offence for a landlord to demand or receive any rent, which by reason of the provisions of that paragraph the tenant is not obliged to pay or is entitled to withhold; to provide penalties for that offence; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
Several of my hon. Friends have sought in recent weeks to introduce Bills to amend the Rent Act. The Bill I propose is rather different. Their Bills concerned decontrolled tenants who may, in October of this year, be without a roof over their heads. My proposed Bill is concerned with tenants who even at the present time have only part of a roof over their heads. They live in houses with gaping roofs, with cracked plaster and broken floorboards. Following the recent snowstorms some of them have scarcely been able to go upstairs to bed at night because of the water running down the walls. Most of such property has been bought and sold in blocks and the owners have never seen the property from which they have been drawing rents.
We care very deeply about these tenants as, indeed, we care about everything that is happening under the Rent Act. I say that in spite of the lying leaflet issued by the Tory Central Office this week. This disgraceful and wicked leaflet says, among other things:
They"—
that is us, the Socialist Party—
want to see the old people in the streets".


The leaflet ends by saying:
Write to Hugh Gaitskell and tell him to stop helping the Communists".
The party opposite must have a very weak case if that is the kind of thing that it has to put out. The whole of the leaflet is written round the personality of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, whose constituency is next to mine. If the Minister of Housing and Local Government knew the plight and the conditions of his Hampstead constituents half so well as my right hon. Friend is aware of the plight of his Leeds constituents, perhaps the Minister would not be supporting the Rent Act today. Only last Saturday my right hon. Friend spent the whole morning advising his constituents, many of whom live in dilapidated old houses such as those with which my proposed Bill deals.
How many of those old houses and houses in disrepair there are, it is impossible to tell, but we can get some idea of the number from the fact that in 1945 the Ministry, in the booklet "Slum Clearance in England and Wales," estimated that in England and Wales alone there were 847,000 unfit houses. From January, 1955, to September, 1957, only 92,000 of those houses were cleared. Therefore, 750,000 unfit houses remain. I think that it is safe to assume that the majority of those houses are in disrepair and that there are many thousands of other houses in disrepair not included in that total.
It is clear that there are hundreds of thousands of houses in need of repair for which notices of rent increases could be issued. Under the Rent Act tenants of those houses can apply for a certificate of disrepair, but what has happened? Last week the Minister blandly declared in the House that only 13,000 certificates of disrepair had been issued. Why? The right hon. Gentleman gave as the reason that
in all the other cases where a rent increase has been claimed the landlord has done the necessary repairs, or is doing them, or has undertaken to do them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1958; Vol. 583, c. 856–7.]
Hon. Friends who live in big cities such as I represent have not seen this great rush on the part of landlords to repair unfit houses. I have not noticed it. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would

come to my constituency and find where all that repair work is going on. Instead of being proud of the fact that only 13,000 tenants have managed to get certificates of disrepair, he ought to be ashamed that, under the Act, only 13,000 have managed to get their rights in this respect.
I believe that the real reasons are three. First, some tenants hesitate to serve a notice on a landlord. It is true that they are protected today, but the Rent Act gives power to the Minister, at the stroke of the pen, to extend the number of houses coming out of control. Although they are protected today, who knows whether they will be protected next year if this Government stay in office? Secondly, they fear being involved in the courts, as they might well be. Thirdly, perhaps the main reason is the complicated and lengthy procedure which is weighted against the tenants.
A tenant has to obtain and fill in Form G. He then has to give the landlord six weeks' notice and the landlord has a further six months to do the repairs if he promises to do them. At the end of that time, we are finding, some landlords have defaulted and not carried out their promises. If the landlord does not promise within six weeks the tenant has to get another form, Form I, and go to the local authority with it, with 2s. 6d. The local authority has to send out inspectors and then to give the landlord another three weeks to think about the matter. If he decides to promise to do the repairs, he has another six months in which to do them.
All these forms have to be filled in by tenants. When we were the Government, the Tory Party said that the country was becoming a nation of form fillers. Under the Rent Act there are 21 forms of one kind or another which have to be filled in. This Bill would reduce the six months' period to one month except when, by agreement with the tenant, very extensive repairs have to be carried out. A certificate of disrepair could be granted immediately on application to the local authority. At present, the landlord can sit back, make promises, and receive increased rent, while the tenant has to run around and do everything. The first object of the Bill is to simplify and shorten the procedure for certificates of disrepair.
Two other provisions are connected with rent, If there is a certificate of disrepair, or if the landlord fails to carry out his undertaking, the tenant can deduct rent already paid, but the full amount that has been paid can only be deducted if the tenant applied for a certificate of disrepair within six months of the landlord serving notice of increase. Otherwise, the rent can remain permanently increased to one-and-a-third of the gross value. The Bill would remove the latter provision. We think that when a house is in disrepair and the landlord refuses to repair it there should be no permanent increase in rent.
The other provision in regard to rent is that if there is a certificate of disrepair, or if the landlord defaults, the tenant shall be entitled to withhold increased rent already claimed. It will he noticed that the onus is again put on the tenant. 'The tenant has to reckon up the rent and take steps to withhold the rent. The tenant may not know that. The tenant may not be able to calculate the correct rent. We believe that the duty should be placed on the landlord not to collect more rent than he is entitled to collect. The Bill makes provision for that and to make it an offence if the landlord does not carry out that duty.
The Bill I seek to introduce is a very small amending Bill, designed to speed things up, to make things less complicated, and to help tenants. We on this side of the House know that it is not the complete answer. We believe that the only solution for the rest of the country is to do as Birmingham has done, for local authorities to take over houses and repair them. In the meantime, I hope that the House will give leave to bring in this small Bill because I believe that it will help tenants in many thousands of houses.

3.49 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I should like to thank the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) for asking leave to bring in this Bill, because it gives us an added opportunity to explain the working of the Act to tenants of decontrolled premises. The hon. Lady says that they still do not understand the Act.
I will confine my remarks to the Motion and, first, would thank the hon. Lady for being one of the instigators in

producing the 300,000 leaflets referring to Form G. I thank her because I am quite sure that we on this side of the House are equally anxious as hon. Members opposite that all tenants shall know their rights and have the opportunity to put in forms if necessary. It was interesting to note what the hon. Lady said about the number of certificates of disrepair which have been issued. A great many of those forms have been wasted. I think that that shows that the calculation made by the Government was better than that made by the hon. Lady, and may have saved the Government some expense in printing forms.
The object of the hon. Lady is to shorten the time given to the landlord to fulfil his undertaking. At present, the application takes six months. We should remember that if the landlord gives an undertaking he can do the work in less than that time. I suggest that it is only fair to the landlord and the tenant to allow to both of them the period stated in the Act.
First, there is the pressure of the demand on the building trade, and, secondly, the builders cannot do roof repairs, for instance, of which the hon. Lady spoke, in the kind of weather that we are having. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Some hon. Gentlemen opposite should come to the West Country to see the leaking roofs we have there, and they would see that it is not possible to repair them at present. Particularly in this weather tenants may have smoky fires, meaning that their chimney stacks are not in order, but that does not mean that the fireplaces are dangerous, and many of them would probably prefer to wait until a little later to have the benefit of the repair of their chimney stacks.
In some districts it is physically impossible for a small builder—I do not mean in the towns, but in the rural areas—to go perhaps seven or eight miles at the least to repair a house, and in those parts it may be necessary for a builder to wait till he has one or two jobs to do in a locality before he does one there.
It would discourage the landlord in giving the undertaking if he were confined to a period of one month and, therefore, even more certificates of disrepair might be required. I doubt whether there have been as many requests as suggested by the hon. Lady,


and I do not think that the public health services would be able to do the work in the time suggested.
Some landlords have not sufficient money to pay for the repairs and they ought to be allowed this time in which to acquire some small capital to finance the necessary repairs. The tenant is protected from paying extra rent if the repairs are not done within six months and I think that we should wait a little longer to see whether they are done, and the rent can be reduced, as the hon. Lady stated, to one-and-one-third times the gross value.
The hon. Lady said that this was a complicated matter for the tenants. I would agree with her that in many ways it is, but there has been issued an admirable little book, The Rent Act and You. One has only to look at Question 49,
Can the tenant get back an increase he has already paid?
to find the answer set out in detail and how the tenant can do it. Moreover, the hon. Lady herself, I am sure, having been a teacher and very good at her profession, realises that people have a knowledge of how to read and write and fill in these forms. Tenants can get information from local authorities and advice from Citizens' Advice Bureaux. People whose rents are being paid by the National Assistance Board have a further protection, because they have the Board's officers to help and guide them.
I would say to the hon. Lady that I do not consider the forms to be as complicated as she made them out to be because to get a certificate it is not necessary for a tenant to define the structural repairs required. If his roof is leaking he does not have to say on the form how many slates on the roof have to be replaced. If his chimney is smoking he can say that his chimney is smoking and he does not have to state on the form what is structurally wrong with the building.
There are some quite frivolous requests from some people. Perhaps they make them for fun. Perhaps they make them because, as the hon. Lady said, they do not understand. There have been requests for

a new doorknocker and the mending of an electric clock, and a complaint that the grass needed mowing. I think that some people are filling up some of these 300,000 forms a little frivolously. [An HON. MEMBER: In Devonport."] No, our houses in Devonport are in very good repair, and we have decontrolled houses rather than rent-controlled houses.

Mr. Denis Howell: Then where did the hon. Lady get her facts from?

Miss Vickers: I got them from Hertfordshire.
I would suggest to the hon. Lady that it is far better to fix the rent increase at one-and-one-third times the gross value than to leave it to the landlord or to relate it to any rent paid in the past; and this may be especially an advantage to a tenant who may have lost his old rent book.
The hon. Lady said that she wishes to make it an offence for a landlord to charge more than the permitted rent. It is already an offence for a landlord to make a false statement in a rent book about entitlement to rent. Therefore, I suggest that as no further legislation on that matter was passed even by the Labour Government, it is unnecessary now to have it.
Of the 15 million dwellings, the Rent Act applies to fewer than 5 million [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—4¼ million—the rents of which may be raised but are still controlled^M—

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: For how long?

Miss Vickers: —and it is only a small number which would benefit from the hon. Lady's proposal. I really do not think that there is any necessity for bringing in such a Bill as the hon. Lady wishes, and accordingly I oppose the Motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 232.

Division No. 66.]
AYES
[3.58 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Healey, Denis
Pargiter, G. A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Parker, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss M.
Parkin, B. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Paton, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holmes, Horace
Pearson, A.


Balfour, A.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Peart, T. F.


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, N.


Beswick, Frank
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E.
Prentice, R. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Blyton, W, R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Probert, A. R.


Boardman, H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Janner, B.
Randall, H. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rankin, John


Bowles, F. G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reeves, J.


Boyd, T. C.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Reid, William


Brockway, A. F.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Royle, C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Short, E. W.


Callaghan, L. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Carmichael, J.
Lawson, G. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Simmons, C. J. (Brlerley Hill)


Champion, A. J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Skeffington, A. M.


Chapman, W. D.
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Chelwynd, G. R.
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Clunie, J.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Coldrick, W.
MacColl, J. E.
Sparks, J. A.


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
MacDermot, Niall
Steele, T.


Cove, W. G.
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McInnes, J.
Stonehouse, John


Cronin, J. D.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Crossman, R. H. S.
McLeavy, Frank
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sylvester, G. O.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Mahon, Simon
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Deer, G.
Mason, Roy
Tomney, F.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mayhew, C. P.
Usborne, H. C.


Diamond, John
Mellish, R. J.
Viant, S. P.


Dodds, N. N.
Mikardo, Ian
Wade, D. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Monslow, W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Moody, A. S.



Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fletcher, Eric
Mort, D. L.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mulley, F. W.
Willey, Frederick


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Greenwood, Anthony
Oram, A. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, C. F.
Orbach, M.
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Owen, W. J.
Woof, R. E.


Grimond, J.
Paget, R. T.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Zilliacus, K.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Hastings, S.
Palmer, A. M, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hayman, F. H.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Mr. Moss and Mr. Redhead.





NOES



Agnew, Sir Peter
Balniel, Lord
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel


Aitken, W. T.
Barber, Anthony
Bishop, F. P.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Barter, John
Bossom, Sir Alfred


Alport, C. J. M.
Beamish, Col. Tufton
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Armstrong, C. W.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Brooman-White, R. C.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)


Baldwin, A. E.
Bingham, R. M.
Bryan, P.







Butler. Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Campbell, Sir David
Hornby, R. P.
Osborne, C.


Carr, Robert
Horobin, Sir Ian
Page, R. G.


Cary, Sir Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Channon, Sir Henry
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Partridge, E.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howard, John (Test)
Peel, W. J.


Cole, Norman
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Cooper, A. E.
Hyde, Montgomery
Pitman, I. J.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pott, H. P.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, J. Enoch


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Profumo, J. D.


Dance, J. C. G.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ramsden, J. E.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Rawlinson, Peter


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Sir Keith
Redmayne, M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kaberry, D.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Keegan, D.
Renton, D. L. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Drayson, G. B.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rippon, A. G. F.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kimball, M.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kirk, P. M.
Robertson, Sir David


Duncan, Sir James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Duthie, W. S.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Leather, E. H. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Leavey, J. A.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leburn, W. G.
Sharples, R. C.


Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, William


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fell, A.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Speir, R. M.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Longden, Gilbert
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Freeth, Denzil
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gammans, Lady
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Garner-Evans, E. H.
McAdden, S. J.
Storey, S.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Gibson-Watt, D.
McKibbin, Alan
Studholme, Sir Henry


Glover, D.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Godber, J. B.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Teeling, W.


Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Temple, John M.


Gower, H. R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Green, A.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mawby, R. L.
Vane, W. M. F.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Wall, Patrick


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Webbe, Sir H.


Hay, John
Neave, Airey
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicholls, Harmar
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Noble, Comdr. R. Hon. Allan
Woollam, John Victor


Hilt, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nugent, G. R. H.



Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Oakshott, H. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Sir Herbert Butcher and




 Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks

Orders of the Day — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES LOANS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.7 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This short Bill does no more than extend the limit of time within which the powers given by Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956, may be exercised. That Section provided for the making of advances from the Exchequer, through the Ministers concerned, to seven nationalised industries, that is, the public electricity, gas and transport undertakings and the two airways corporations. The Section provided that the total of such advances should not exceed£700 million, and that no advances should be made after 31st March, 1958.
The House will remember that, before 1956, the nationalised boards had raised the finance that they needed for their capital requirements by issuing stock on the market, with Treasury guarantee. In so far as those stocks were not taken up by private subscribers, they were supported by the Exchequer, and this support often had to be substantial. Before the issues could be made, most of the boards had run up considerable overdrafts with their banks.
The Act of 1956 made a change in that respect. It enabled the seven boards to receive money direct from the Exchequer, which meant that the Government no longer had the fortuitous responsibility for financing these industries but could control the whole operation. The Government could meet the needs of the boards as they arose, and, so far as the Government themselves had to borrow, could also decide the right moment at which the market could be approached for the finance required.
The House will remember that there was a very interesting debate on those proposals in the early hours of one morning. As I re-read the debate, I found that no hon. Member questioned that the new procedure laid down in the 1956 Act was preferable to the one which it replaced. The differences which arose

in that debate were on the desirability and possibility of the nationalised industries raising their capital in the market on their own credit.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Without Treasury guarantee.

Mr. Simon: Yes, on their own credit. The House will remember that the provisions of the 1956 Act were expressed to be temporary, and were to be reviewed after a reasonable interval. The system of financing the nationalised industries was, therefore, designed to last for two years and to expire at the end of this financial year.
The purpose of this Bill is only to extend the limit of time within which the existing powers can be exercised so that the future of this method of financing the nationalised industries—indeed, generally speaking, all methods and any possible method of financing the nationalised industries—might be considered in what I think the House will agree is its proper context; in other words, the context of the general review of the Government's economic policy in the Budget. It would follow that any necessary provision should be included in the Finance Bill, so that the House will then have a full opportunity to discuss the Government's proposal.
I do not propose, therefore, to embark this afternoon on any discussion on what is the right method of financing the nationalised industries. The House will probably prefer that that should be left for another day, although, of course, I will try to answer any questions that may be asked of me.

Mr. Nabarro: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend a question now? In the event of no proposals being embodied in the Finance Bill this year, is it not a fact that the method of financing these industries, to which the Bill refers, would then relapse to the pre-1956 method of doing so?

Mr. Simon: I should like to have a look at the terms of the original Act before I answered that question "off the cuff". I think that is so, but I am not quite sure whether the pre-1956 provisions were repealed, though I think not. I think I ought to say that it is my right hon. Friend's intention to deal with this matter in the Finance Bill.

Mr. Nabarro: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Simon: In the meantime, it is necessary to make provision for these industries to receive the capital finance that they need, and I therefore commend this Bill to the House as an interim Measure, which is only to extend until the 31st August the time within which the powers already granted by the House may be exercised. It does not extend the limit of money which the House has already authorised to be advanced; that remains at£700 million.
As it happens, the balance of the money which is expected to remain unexpended on 31st March, which is about£120 million, is very little more than that which we expect these seven boards will need to draw before the end of August. The effect of this Bill will, therefore, be to give a natural life to the powers which the House has already granted.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said, this is a minor interim Measure, and we do not therefore oppose it. Indeed, it prolongs a system of which we approve, and I suppose that five months is better than nothing at all. Therefore, we are in favour of the Bill positively, as it stands.
Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956, which is, in effect, extended for a short time by this Bill, was really no more than a technical change, though a valuable one. Its effect was to help the timing of Government borrowing on the market. It did not affect either the Government's control of or responsibility for investment by the public industries, and because it did not affect these basic things—the Government's responsibility for and control over investment by public industries—it was a technical improvement. We supported it in that late night, or, rather, early morning, debate, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, I think on 12th June, 1956, in which, despite a rather long verbal revolt by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and some others, the proposal was eventually carried without a Division.
I must say that, none the less, we are rather suspicious and apprehensive, and I should like to direct my remarks particularly to the word "August", in line

10 of the Bill. We are worried that this is so short an extension, and we suspect that it is intended that this should be looked at again in the Budget, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has gone so far as to say that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor will actually deal with this in his Budget. The hon. and learned Gentleman used the word review", which I find an alarming word, which fills me with suspicion. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] It is because the hon. Member for Kidderminster is pleased that I am filled with suspicion.
We are frightened that the intention is to force these public industries on to the market for their capital, as suggested by the Herbert Committee. The Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, made some rather ominous remarks in his Budget speech. Talking about Section 42, he said that it would ultimately mean that the Government would force them on to the market, and he added:
The time may come when this can happen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 17th April. 1956: Vol 551, c. 865.]
He even said, on 12th June, 1956:
Of course, we should like to move in the direction of the Herbert Committee's Report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th June, 1956; Vol. 554, c. 529.]
All these things, coupled with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about a review of this whole system in the coming Budget, fills us with alarm. If that is the intention of this Bill we are very much against that intention.
We do not accept in this matter the underlying principle of the Herbert Committee that there is an automatic and natural identity between the judgment of the money market and the national interest. That is the assumption underlying what the hon. Member for Kidderminster and the Herbert Committee have said. They assume, as a metaphysical proposition, that the judgment of the money market and the national interest must always and completely coincide. They very frequently diverge; not always, but frequently. If these public industries were forced on the money market in this way, it would bring an unpredictable hazard into the planned development, the chosen pattern in these basic industries.
It would also be impracticable, as even the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, himself said. He used the word


impracticable in his Budget speech, in which he said that these industries would not have a cat in hell's chance of raising the money in the market. The right hon. Gentleman gave two reasons, and these two reasons would still apply. He said that the very size of their requirements would be beyond the capacity of the market, and that is still true today. The enormous demands of these concerns would be beyond the capacity of the market and, for that reason, would force up costs to these basic industries.
At the present time, they can borrow, quite rightly, on terms—I think the phrase is—" appropriate to Government credit for a considerable number of years." If forced on to the market, they would be forced to borrow at the rates prevailing, which would be quite artificial and inflated, due to the unprecedented size of their requirements. Of course, if they are forced on to the market, they must be free to fix their prices, and I do not think that it is right that a monopoly, private or public, should have sole discretion in fixing prices. These are statutory monopolies—

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman's party legislated for complete freedom on the part of the area electricity boards to fix their own tariffs and prices. That was the intention and that is the system in force today. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the central Government should control gas and electricity prices, for example?

Mr. Gordon Walker: No, but all these Acts contain a provision for general directions by the Government of the day, and if these monopoly powers are used improperly there is all the more reason for saying there must be control, as in the case of private monopolies. I do not think that monopolies, whether public or private, should have the absolute right to fix prices regardless of the opinions of Parliament and public of the day.
In any case, if they have to be forced on the market, I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that they would have to be free of all Government control on their rate of investment. If they want to invest a great deal more, and have the opportunity to do more than the Government wanted them to do, they must have that freedom. They cannot be given freedom and be restricted simultaneously. It would be a very bad thing

because, of course, the control over the investment of the public industries, this very large section of investment, is a very important device for stabilising and balancing the economy——

Mr. Nabarro: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has neglected to observe that private industry resorting to the money market for new capital is subject to all the restrictions imposed by the Capital Issues Committee, and that if these nationalised industries resorted to the money market for new capital the same restrictions would apply.

Mr. Gordon Walker: That is a very different thing from the present direct control imposed by the Government and. as we think, imposed wrongly, in this case, in the form of direct and drastic cuts. We would have to rely on the impersonal Capital Issues Committee controls as they apply to private industry. As I say, if the intention behind the Bill is to drive the public industries on to the money market for their capital, we will resist that intention strenuously and uncompromisingly.

4.21 p.m.

Sir Peter Roberts: The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has attacked only one aspect of this Bill, but there is another to which I should like to draw the attention of my hon. and learned Friend. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that one of the assets of going to the money market is that one has to prove efficiency. He talked about "national interest," and queried it, but I do not think that he can query the fact that the money market does insist on efficiency. If the nationalised industries had to go there for their money that would be one advantage——

Mr. Gordon Walker: And the test of efficiency is the profits resulting from prices charged.

Sir P. Roberts: And that is one of the best criteria of efficiency that there are.
I want to ask my hon. and learned Friend a question concerned more with the actual form in which the financing will take place. I believe that it is a mistake for the Government to have come forward with this Bill without giving some idea of their thoughts on the subject. It will, possibly, raise a


certain amount of unnecessary doubt on the other side of the House, and may engender attacks which are not, in themselves, properly founded. It is a pity that the Government should seek virtually to spend another£120 million before August without saying how the money is to be found.
In view of the speech of the Financial Secretary, however, all that I can do at this stage is to ask a question. I hope that he will not hide behind the old saying that it all arises out of the Budget statement of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor because, after all, he has brought the Bill before the House. One of the things that the Prime Minister said when he introduced his Budget statement, two years ago—referring to the figure of£350 million, which was the estimated figure for 1956–57—was:
So disappears, by my own murderous act, my beautiful overall balance!"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April. 1956; Vol. 551, c. 867.]
He was talking about under-the-line expenditure.
This method has applied to the coal industry for some time. However, the finance of these further industries which were brought in by the Amendment to Section 42 of the 1956 Act, have been met in part, at least, out of the Budget surplus allocated to this form of capital expenditure. I want to say, and I hope that the Treasury will take note of it, that at present it is not tenable to use Revenue income taken from direct taxation to finance long-term capital expenditure of this nature. That, in itself, is inflationary, because it tends to keep up the over-high rate of taxation that we have at the present time.
What we should seek to do now is to see that against whatever Budget surplus there may be—and from what information I can glean from the figures already published that surplus may be about£450 million—we should make certain that this£120 million that we are carrying over to August next is not set against that Budget surplus. To do that would be inflationary in itself. I am rather sorry that we have had this debate in vacuum, so to speak, but at least it gives me the opportunity of making this statement.
Whether or not the Government should go to the open money market, as suggested by some hon. Gentlemen—though

that may possibly, even at present, be rather impracticable—or whether or not there is some form of Government guarantee, so long as it is funded, then, quite frankly, I do not mind. But if we are to start using this extra£120 million, which we are asked to spend, so far as I can see, out of this year's Budget surplus, without some indication from the Government of what their intention is, it will make it rather difficult for me to support the Bill.
I shall do so, with hope and faith, because when we come to the Budget, I sincerely hope to find that the words I have spoken now will have had some effect upon my hon. and learned Friend and upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. This is a matter of the greatest importance. It is something that affects the whole section of nationalised industries at present. Indeed, it goes far wider, and affects the private sector as well——

Mr. William Shepherd: I cannot follow my hon. Friend's argument. If we took from past savings the money to finance these industries, that would surely be much more inflationary than taking the money out of current revenue, which would draw off that amount of purchasing power and make the whole thing less inflationary.

Sir P. Roberts: That, if I may say so, is the old, out-of-date, economic theory of scooping off surplus spending power. I really should have thought that, by now, what I would call modern, up-to-date economic thinkers had abandoned that sort of argument, and I hope that we shall not hear very much more about it. We have been hearing it for nearly twelve years now, and the inflationary spiral has been going up and up. It is about time that we got down to the economic fact of life that high taxation is inflationary, and that we have to bring taxation down by using some of the Budget surplus, which will drive private, rather than public, savings into our investment campaign.
It is far better for the private investor to invest his own money in this way rather than for the State to do it for him. I would agree, however, that if the private sector did not respond, I would not mind, afterwards, a certain amount of bolstering from the State itself. This matter is very important to me,


and I believe that if this debate is properly reported to the Chancellor it will have the effect of persuading him to do what I wish in his Budget. There-fore, I am prepared to support the Government.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I trust that the hope and faith of the hon. Member for Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) in the Government's intentions are not fulfilled, but I fear that we have every reason to believe that there is a great likelihood that they will be. For that reason, I have very grave doubts as to the purpose behind the introduction of the Bill, and the short length of time that it covers, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker).
There are a considerable number of reasons why the normal commercial standards cannot be applied to the nationalised industries when they seek to raise capital. There are two main considerations. The first is that the nationalised industries have certain public service obligations which were laid upon them by the House. In each of the nationalising Measures certain statutory requirements are laid upon the boards concerned which go far beyond the normal requirements of a commercial concern. The National Coal Board does not operate along normal commercial lines, because the duty is laid upon it to produce all the coal which it is necessary to produce.
As a consequence, it has to put the production of coal far above normal commercial operations. It has made great economic sacrifices to produce coal and it has kept many uneconomic pits open. If it were operating as a commercial concern, would it be called upon to meet the losses which result from the imports of coal? Of course not, Up to a point it is compelled to operate on a non-commercial basis, and, therefore, it cannot be judged in the same context as a normal commercial concern when seeking to raise capital.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member should be aware that the Bill does not include the National Coal Board, nor did Section 42 of the 1956 Act include the Coal Board. Neither myself nor any of my hon. Friends has ever suggested sending the Coal Board to the open market.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member is illogical. Moreover, what reason have we to believe that if a change is made in the Budget it will not cover all the nationalised industries? If the Government decide to change the manner in which the nationalised industries raise their capital, there is no reason why they should not make it equally applicable to the Coal Board.
In any case, I gave the Coal Board only as an example. I could cite the electricity boards, in which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is so interested. Those boards have to pay particular attention to rural electrification. They must give more attention to rural electrification than would be given by a commercial concern which put its profits first and foremost.
The second reason why we cannot judge such bodies in the same way as a commercial concern is that they are not free to fix their prices. In spite of what the hon. Member for Kidderminster said in his interjection, we know that there is a gentleman's agreement with the Coal Board. For the railways, there is the Transport Tribunal. Although, theoretically, gas and electricity boards do not have to apply to the Government for permission to raise their charges, it is well known that there is very close consultation between the boards and the Ministries. No nationalised industry is free to fix its prices, because it is in consultation with the Government and the Government's intentions are known. Indeed, the Government have been known on many occasions to intervene in the fixing of prices by the nationalised industries.
If there were to be a change and the nationalised boards were to be compelled to go to the market to raise their capital without a Government guarantee, it would be necessary to remove the public service obligations from the boards and to give them freedom to fix their prices so that they could compete in the market on equal terms with normal commercial firms. No one in his senses would wish that to be done. No one wishes to end the statutory obligations by which the boards partly have to be a public service and no one wishes to allow monopolies to be completely free to fix their own prices.
That is one set of arguments to show why I do not favour the change which


hon. Members opposite prefer. It is a fallacy to think that the market would have better evidence of the economic "justifiability" of the expenditure concerned. My right hon. Friend pointed out that it does not necessarily depend upon the merits of the case. It depends upon the conditions of the market at the time, upon the number of other concerns seeking to raise capital and upon the place which the organisation in question has in the queue.
When it seeks to engage in capital development, each one of these nationalised boards has to put its plans before the Minister concerned. By law the capital development programme of the public corporations must be presented to the Minister and it has to be agreed by him in consultation with the Treasury. When the nationalised boards require to raise capital, therefore, the purposes to which that capital is to be put have already been agreed by the Minister, who has had consultations with the boards, and by the Treasury, which has also been consulted.
Why should the market itself, the issuing houses and the investors be in a better position to judge whether the board requires that capital and whether that capital should be invested? Already, the boards, the Minister and the Treasury would have agreed that the raising of this capital was necessary, and once it had been agreed by them that it was necessary, the provision for raising it would have to be made.
I will refer to the British Transport Commission as a case where it would be most undesirable to compel the Commission to go to the market to raise the capital which it requires. British Railways have a modernisation plan which was originally to have cost£1,200 million and will now cost£1,500 million because of the increase in prices. About 60 per cent. of it is to be financed by the Commission, but the balance will have to be raised in one way or another. That plan was approved by the Minister, presented to the House as a White Paper and approved in principle by the House, after a debate. It was made clear during the debate that the future solvency of British Railways depended entirely on the successful fulfilment of the modernisation plan. The plan was

made on the assumption that the capital would be available.
Unfortunately, the Transport Commission is not in a very satisfactory financial position to seek money on the market at the present time. It had a deficit of over£50 million in 1956 and it is known to have a deficit of well over that amount in 1957. The Government are now meeting the deficit through loans. They are limiting the loans which they will make to the B.T.C. to£250 million up to 1961–62, by which time the Commission is supposed to be able to balance its accounts. If one looks at the position it is clear that that will not be adequate. The accumulated deficit with the accumulated interest will amount to probably double that sum by 1961–62.
The reason I raise the question of the Transport Commission is that its credit would rank very low in the market today. If it had to go to the market with its known deficits exceeding£50 million. with freight traffics declining severely, and with the somewhat gloomy outlook for the railways, do hon. Members opposite think that the Commission would be able to raise that money on the market today on satisfactory terms? Yet the House has agreed that it must have the money and the Minister has time and again said in the House that the Commission's future depends on the success of the modernisation plan.
We cannot judge the public corporations by the same standards as commercial concerns. To depart from Government finance for the Transport Commission in particular would gravely endanger its financial position and would cause further deterioration in its finances. It is for that reason, among others, that I very much regret that in introducing the Bill the Government have decided to put a five months' limit on it. It would have been far better to extend the Bill indefinitely, because it could be brought to an end at any time without legislation; it merely gives power to the Government and does not say that the financing of these public corporations must be done in this way.
If the Bill were extended indefinitely, the power would exist for the Government to provide the finance for the public corporations as and when necessary. But by imposing a limit, as is done in the Bill, the Government are prejudging the


situation and they are prejudicing the position. It is clear that definite changes will be made and that this method of financing will be dropped even before the House has been given the opportunity of debating the proposals which are to be put forward when the Budget is presented.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I regret that the Financial Secretary did not see fit to tell us more about how the present system is working. I have no doubt that his luminous mind would have cast considerable light upon what has been happening over the last eighteen months or so. I am not at all reassured by the statement that we can have a debate about this matter during the Budget or the Finance Bill, because there is no guarantee, once again, that this matter will not come tip at six o'clock in the morning and, therefore, receive inadequate consideration. Nor can it be entirely confined to the narrow question of how one raises the capital for these industries.
As the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has said, this in turn brings up the question of a pricing policy and the restrictions which we shall put upon them as public monopolies. The House spends too little time in debating the general question as to how we should run the nationalised industries. This would have been a good opportunity to consider the matter in its broader aspects. We should have been told what has been happening. Has it proved easier to manage the National Debt over the last two years? What has been the position of these industries in their relations with the banks?
The hon. Member for Enfield, East mentioned the large deficit which has been run up by the Transport Commission. What will the Government do about it? Is not this an inflationary event in itself? Furthermore, I think that the outstanding advances to the nationalised industries affected by the Bill have varied between£40 million and£78 million, and this too seems to be a substantial figure and does not seem to have been substantially reduced during the life of this Measure, although this was one of the reasons why it was introduced in the 1956 Finance Act.
On the general subject of the control of nationalised industries, the argument for the market is that the market is not one man or one Committee on whose judgment we stand or fall, but is supposed to reflect the judgments of a variety of people with different skills and experience and therefore people whose errors may cancel each other out. Whether we think the market is a good instrument or not, what many people would not deny at present is that the instruments for examining the capital programmes of the nationalised industries are unsuitable for the job. I do not believe that the Treasury was intended to do this job. I am certain that the House of Commons was not.

Mr. Nabarro: Does the hon. Gentleman realise what he is saying? Nobody on this side of the House has ever suggested that this problem is either all black or all white. Nobody has ever suggested that all the nationalised industries should go to the market. But there are certain suitable sectors of the nationalised industries which ought to be driven on to the market.

Mr. Grimond: Patience is not one of the hon. Member's greatest virtues. He is in danger of finding that he has made his speech before he has been called, but I appreciate the point, and am coming to it.
As regards those industries which we have agreed cannot be put on to the market, the present method of control through the House is very unsatisfactory. There are several points at issue in this Bill upon which we should spend a little time in consideration.
One is the question whether the present methods of financing these industries equate general savings with general investment. The Prime Minister, when he introduced this matter two years ago, made a strong point about that, and said that under the old system, by which the Government had to support the market when issues by the nationalised industries could not be absorbed, investment got out of step with savings. Has it been proved that the Government have found it easier to manage the National Debt under the present system? Then there is the question as to whether we are using our savings to the best advantage? There is reason to suppose that we are not. The


return on capital from the mines is extremely low. There is at least a case for investigation as to whether we should spend about£235 million, or nearly half the amount mentioned in the financial memorandum, on the electricity industry. There is at least a case for saying that we are spending too much on the railways and too little on the roads. I am not at all satisfied that within the various industries we are getting the best value for our money.
One suggestion for curing this is to throw some of the nationalised industries into the market. This was specifically suggested in the Herbert Report. We have broken down the electricity industry into generation and distribution. Is it not also possible to break down the amounts which might be demanded by the market at any time? I am bound to say that when the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) says that the interest rates would be forced up by large demands in the markets, that is true. But this is also the purpose of the market. It means that if very large demands for capital are made upon the market, then interest rates will go up and those who can pay the highest rates will get the money. We cannot have the market and also expect to act as though it were itself a nationalised industry.
The question of the railways is different, though there must be some level at which the railways are profitable. But we have to face the argument—it is a powerful one—that if we are to expect industries to raise money without a guarantee in the market, they must be free of many of the restrictions which hamper them and they must have real control over their prices. I should be prepared to face that as far as the electricity and gas industries are concerned.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: In that case, would the hon. Gentleman relieve the electricity boards of their present obligations to carry on rural electrification, even at a loss?

Mr. Grimond: Not necessarily. There may be certain aspects in which these industries require special subsidy or help. I am not convinced that it would not be possible to let them go to the market. But there is another possible improvement. I still feel that there is a very

strong case for having something in the nature of an investment board which would relate the demands of these industries one to another and to the demands of private industry. It could then advise the Treasury and the House upon whether we were spending too much on the railways as against the roads or too much on the coal industry as against the electricity industry. If we are to run these nationalised industries, an investment board would be a very useful instrument for comparing one industry with another and advising it.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Who would sit on the board?

Mr. Gordon Walker: Lord Cohen.

Mr. Grimond: Industrialists, financiers, economists and people connected with the nationalised industries. If there is a Capital Issues Committee, I do not follow why it should be difficult to find an investment board.
There is the further question, quite apart from who should provide the money, as to whether some of it should not be in the form of equity stock held, perhaps by the Exchequer. There seems to be a case for saying, "You should not saddle these industries with the obligation to pay a fixed rate of interest, whether they are profitable or not, for an indefinite time. It would at least be considered a heavy burden by private industry." Since the Labour Party propose to buy up ordinary shares in private industries. I should be interested to know whether they are proposing to finance the nationalised industries by the issue of ordinary shares?

Mr. Gordon Walker: To do that, one would have to denationalise the industries, and I am not in favour of that.

Mr. Grimond: Not at all, if the Treasury held the shares.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the Government could fix dividend rates arbitrarily—because they would be the one shareholder—and pay, say,¼per cent. to itself?

Mr. Grimond: If the industry made a profit and it accrued to the benefit of the taxpayer, it would certainly, be better than the present position.
But in any case, under its new policy, the Labour Party may well reach the position where it controls 60 per cent. or more of some private industry, if it sets out to buy its shares, and then the same situation will arise—it could control the dividend.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is not the hon. Gentleman simply suggesting that if the State holds equity shares in nationalised industries, then the industries are used in order to raise revenue—almost for taxation purposes?

Mr. Grimond: I have already explained my reasoning. The structure of financing nationalised industries, on which money those industries pay heavy interest whether they make a profit or not, and, at the same time, are supposed to be semi-commercial concerns, is illogical. There is a case for examining these questions concerned with their present financing.
I hope that when the Budget proposals are brought forward they will be reasonably comprehensive because we have now tried various methods of financing nationalised industries. Even now, of course, the Bill applies only to certain nationalised industries. It does not apply to the coal industry, nor to the Atomic Energy Authority which is this year getting£100 million direct from the Treasury.
I hope that we shall have some really comprehensive proposals about the general running of the nationalised industries and that the Government will consider whether, in some form or other, at least the gas and electricity industries cannot be put into the market and made to raise their money, through the ordinary money market. If then we want to subsidise certain special aspects of their work it can be done clearly and directly and with the approval of Parliament.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The debate which we had on this topic on 12th June, 1956, was characterised by the fact that most speakers from this side of the House were highly critical of what the then Chancellor, the present Prime Minister, proposed. It is true that the debate started at 4 o'clock in morning, ran till 6.30 that morning, and that the Government Whips exercised the most

rigorous pressure to restrict speeches with the result that only three or four hon. Members had the opportunity to speak. The debate was inadequate and unsatisfactory, but it was important from the point of view that every speech made from this side of the House sternly criticised the method proposed in the Finance Bill of that year.
In the course of the present Prime Minister's reply to that debate, I raised the point whether we were not moving away from Conservative philosophy towards a system for all time whereby there would be Government financing at the centre of these State corporations, all of which has such a profound bearing upon the nation's economy, and notably, I think, upon trends to inflation in conditions of full employment. We were then told that the proposal was specifically for two years. In my opinion, this extension today is trifling.
I am told that out of the£700 million covered by Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956, about£580 million—I hope that my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—has actually been taken up so far. There is an amount of about£120 million remaining to be expended. As the whole of it will not be expended by 31st March, 1958, which is the statutory completion date, we are merely suggesting today a holding operation to defer the matter till August. I have no objection——

Mr. Ernest Davies: Those figures are given in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman blathered for about 40 minutes when he was making his speech, and he might allow me to make my modest contribution without interruption. I assure you. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that my speech will be a great deal shorter than that of the hon. Gentleman, and a good deal more sensible.

Mr. Ernest Davies: On a point of order. Is "blather" a Parliamentary term. Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew): I think it is a word that we had better not use, but it is all right.

Mr. Nabarro: I did not hear your Ruling. Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I said that I think it is a word that we should not use, but that it is all right—it is in order.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) introduced a doubtful word into our debate on one occasion. He referred to a "blatherskite". The two words are related to one another. However, if I have been un-parliamentary in my reference to what was a tedious speech by the hon. Gentleman, I apologise.
The plain fact is that we on this side of the House are, as I interpret the position, highly critical of any long-term continuation of centralised Governmental financing of these State corporations. I have never said that all of them should be driven on to the open money market. What I have said is that those sectors of the nationalised industries which are commercial and highly competitive in character should be given the opportunity to resort to the money market without Treasury guarantee, for such funds as they require. I think that that is what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) tended to infer. We have a very good——

Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order. I have just consulted page 474 of Erskine May, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, where it says that the word "blether" is out of order and is an un-parliamentary expression. Is there a distinction between "blather" and "blether"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There certainly is in Scotland.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful, as always, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your continued support in the matter.
What I am saying is that certain sectors of the nationalised industries which are highly competitive and commercial in character should be induced to go to the money market without Treasury guarantee, for their capital requirements.
I will reduce the matter to the simplest possible example. What case is there for money being provided by the central Government to an area electricity board shop to put into its stock a television set for retail sale? Why should that television set be provided out of central Government money on a Treasury guarantee, at special preferential interest

rates whereas the private enterprise trader down the street who is competing with the State shop, has to pay the full market rate for such capital as he requires in order to buy the identical television set? It is grossly unfair, and though reducing the matter to a very simple case it is the fact that large sums of money are tied up by the area boards in electrical appliances and equipment of that kind with the sale of which they should not be concerned.
I say to my hon. Friend that I am prepared—I think that many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House are prepared—to give the Bill a Second Reading as it is only a holding operation, but that I should be sternly opposed to a continuance of these methods of financing the nationalised boards. I want progress to be made in the direction suggested in the Herbert Report. The Herbert Committee was quite unequivocal about the matter. It said that the area electricity boards should go to the open money market for such capital as they require. Further, the Herbert Committee drew very careful attention to the fact that there was a considerable wastage of money by the electricity boards. The term used by the Committee was that their approach to the matter of costs was languid. That can only mean that money was being wasted.
The best means within a statutory monopoly of preventing that kind of waste is to induce the most highly commercial and competitive conditions the discipline for which only the money market can provide. I say, therefore, that such long-term proposals as my hon. Friend may propose in the forthcoming Finance Bill in April or May, or in an alternative Measure, should certainly apply to such nationalised industries as the Coal Board or the Transport Commission because I agree with the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) that there is no question of the Transport Commission being sent to the money market for its capital requirements.
It should apply to the Coal Board, the Transport Commission and, possibly, some other nationalised boards, but, in my view, it should not apply to the area electricity or gas boards, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board or to several other of the smaller nationalised


industries which are highly commercial and competitive in character. We require them to operate on a reasonably prudent and economic basis and it is only possible to provide the necessary disciplinary sinews by driving them on to the money market and making them pay the normal market rate for such residual capital requirements as they may have from year to year, after provision of moneys from their own resources. That is exactly the recommendation made by the Herbert Committee and I believe that it should commend itself to the majority of Members of this House.
I support the Second Reading of the Bill only with the sternest warning to my hon. and learned Friend. I ask him to convey to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he comes forward in the Finance Bill with proposals for continuing massive investment in all the nationalised industries on a centralised Governmental basis as was contained in Section 42 of the Finance Act. 1956, I shall be forced strenuously to oppose those proposals.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury always makes a pleasant speech—I say this with respect to him, because he is a constituency neighbour of mine on Tees-side—but he did not tell us a great deal about the background to this matter. He did not tell us, for instance, whether there had been any consultations with the nationalised industries concerned about the future raising of their capital, how they would go about it and whether they felt that the suggested limited arrangement gives them the kind of certainty about the future which these important industries deserve.
I wish to take up shortly the point made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). He has talked a great deal over a considerable period about the need to force the nationalised industries on to the money market. When we boil it all down, however, and look at the qualifications and exemptions that the hon. Member makes, it seems to come back simply to the gas and electricity industries, because the Coal Board always had the procedure of the Bill and the hon. Member knows that it is not possible to make a change there, at any rate.

Mr. Nabarro: There is a very good reason——

Mr. Palmer: The hon. Member is always in a hurry. I will give way presently. He also agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) that we could not include the railways. Nuclear energy does not receive revenue anyhow, because it is not a commercial undertaking. It comes then, therefore, simply to gas and electricity and, if the hon. Member had to make a choice between gas and electricity, I am sure he would prefer that electricity should take the risk. To limit it further, does he have very much in mind beyond putting the area electricity boards on to the market? I would like him to say whether he is in favour of the Generating Board raising its capital in the market.

Mr. Nabarro: The answer is to be found in this simple fact. Only one independent committee of inquiry has been appointed to consider and has reported upon a nationalised industry other than coal. That was the Herbert Committee, in the case of electricity. The Herbert Committee recommended exactly what I said today—not that the Generating Board's capital requirements should be met from the open money market, but that those of the area boards should be, because they are highly commercial and competitive in character the one with another and with the gas industry.

Mr. Palmer: Just as I said, when we examine all this agitation we find that there is not much in it. It all adds up to the area electricity boards. Also I should have thought that the hon. Member for Kidderminster, more than anyone else in the House, was quite capable of making up his mind. It is true that he usually makes it up in the wrong way, but I am certain he is capable of making it up. That he now turns to the Herbert Committee and says that it must be right because that Committee says so, does not do any justice to the hon. Member's considerable intelligence.
I am interested to discover that the hon. Member leaves out the Generating Board, which is an enormous user of national capital. There is experience in


this matter with the electricity supply industry in the past, because the old Central Electricity Board, created under the 1926 Act, had a Treasury guarantee for its capital. That board, however, which constructed the electricity grid and was an early publicly-owned undertaking, made no use of its Treasury guarantee and raised its money without it. But there has never been evidence to those who have studied electricity finance and costs to show that the old Central Electricity Board was any more efficient or outstandingly economical in the use of capital as compared with its successors simply because it happened to raise its money without a Treasury guarantee.
Some of my hon. and right hon. Friends may disagree with this observation: I speak not as a financial expert but merely as an engineer and productive worker. Electricity seems to be the main culprit in all this, but it is doubtful whether in practice raising independent capital would make any real difference. It is, after all a publicly-owned undertaking, a statutory monopoly. It is a fairly safe and certain investment and I should have thought that the interest rates would have been very little different with or without public support. Some of my hon. Friends may disagree with my conclusion, but if that be the case there is no point in hon. Members opposite making such a song and dance about the business generally.
Conservative Members of Parliament who interest themselves in this question and who try to follow, as do some of us on this side, the affairs of the publicly-owned industries must try to make up their minds exactly where they stand. They must try to decide whether they regard these undertakings as publicly-owned commercial undertakings or as public services. I unhesitatingly say that I personally regard them as public services in principle. However, too many hon. Members opposite try to ride two horses at the same time. They want, up to a point, in theory at least, the nationalised industries to go on to the money market so that they can be subject to so-called financial discipline; they want the true commercial costs of these industries always to be known. But at the same time, they demand that there should

be a Select Committee and greater Parliamentary control generally. I do not disagree with that view because I regard a nationalised industry as a public service and there is a strong case for making a public service responsible in part at least to this House. Hon. Members opposite want price checks when it suits their political convenience; they usually demand that there should be greater opportunities for Parliamentary questioning. The two approaches do not go together, I am afraid.
Before we discuss this matter again and, perhaps, decide it for a long time ahead, hon. Members opposite should make up their minds whether these industries should be true commercial undertakings away from this House altogether or whether they should be subject to Parliamentary control and Parliamentary checks of one kind or another. Certainly, in logic, they should not try to have it both ways.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: The Bill does not directly raise the question of whether it is right for nationalised industries to borrow on their own credit. If the Bill is not passed, all that would happen would be that we should go back to the old system under which nationalised industries borrowed under their own names but with a Government guarantee. In effect, the money comes out of Government pockets anyway, but the object of the change by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister two years ago was simply to take the money out of a rather more convenient pocket.
It is really a small matter at issue in the Bill. I do not want to discuss the larger question. I wish only to draw the attention of the House to one point which is of importance. That is, the tremendous burden which the financing of nationalised industries puts upon the country, a burden in taxation and a burden in the greater difficulty of controlling our economy. This point was largely missed in all the long debates we had on nationalisation in the Parliament of 1945 to 1950. We on this side of the House raised many objections to nationalisation and every one proved valid. We did not, however, put forward the following criticism, which is an important one.
By and large private industry is self-financing. It saves money, it makes profits in competition, and if it goes to the market, it does so on its own credit and it does not get the money unless that credit is sufficient. I do not believe anybody knows how efficient or inefficient the nationalised industries are. I believe we are in the grip of a number of irresponsible monopolies and, owing to the way this has come about, every year some hundreds of millions of pounds of fixed interest-bearing securities have to be raised, and are issued, on behalf of the nationalised industries.
It is difficult to get anybody to buy them because nobody wants to buy long-dated Government securities in these vast quantities. Therefore, the Treasury is driven to having a very large above-the-line surplus in order to raise this capital out of revenue. In order not to cause inflation, and in so far as these amounts are not covered by revenue, they are bound to try to sell the stock, and if they cannot sell it, as has often been impossible in the past, the money must be raised by Treasury bills, and the selling of Treasury bills makes the control of the monetary system twice as difficult.
Therefore I hope that when the next General Election conies along, and hon. Gentlemen opposite are pledged to a vast new quantity of nationalisation and the raising of many thousands of millions of pounds for rented houses, steel, transport and a thousand other things, the country will realise that if by some supreme misfortune they got into power, and if they carried out those plans, we should be in for a very large increase in taxation and a monetary system which would be totally impossible to operate.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond: I doubt, Sir, whether you would permit me to answer in full the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) by explaining in detail the manner in which the Labour Party proposes to finance its proposals after the next Election. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was undoubtedly a valuable contribution, inasmuch as it centred attention on the main point of this Bill, and especially on the approach of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to the nationalised industries.
The debate is concerned with a small point, but his approach is the general one, that of hostility to nationalised industries, as great today as it ever was. The right hon. Gentleman said that during the course of the 1945 to 1950 Parliament, during which I had the honour to be a Member of this House, hundreds of criticisms were raised and all had proved to be valid. This drew cheers from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and others sitting on the benches opposite. These are not reasons relating to the short point in this Bill; these are rationalisations for the opposition to the nationalised industries.
I take an entirely different point of view from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I envisage those nationalised industries mentioned in Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956, as industries which have responsibilities that it would be pointless to try to catalogue. They have many responsibilities, however, which are outside the normal commercial field, and with responsibilities go rights. Because they have certain responsibilities, they should have certain rights to balance, and this is a perfectly feasible financial proposition. I cannot see why there should be the assumption, which is the one behind this Bill, that what is right for General Motors is right for the nation, and what is right for the money market is right for the nationalised industries. What is right for the money market may be, and is, indeed, today, a wholly artificial concept.
The fact that we want to attract dollars or Swiss currency to this country has nothing whatever to do with the deployment of resources in the nationalised industries, for which purpose funds are required. It is wholly artificial, because of the raising of the Bank Rate and the automatic raising of the money market rates, that for these foreign purposes there should be put a special burden on the nationalised industries which, as I say, have specified responsibilities which we on this side of the House would want to support.
I was sorry to hear my right hon. Friend start his speech by saying we were not proposing to divide on the Second Reading of this Bill, because it was limited to a short period. Inasmuch as this Bill only extends the period to


August, and inasmuch as we have had a leakage from the Front Bench that the Budget speech will contain different proposals, it is clear that from August onwards the nationalised industries will not necessarily be able to look to the Treasury for their finance.
If I am wrong, no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us when he replies to the debate. I suppose, however, that my right hon. Friend was justified, because the Opposition have shown themselves, as always, true democrats in this matter. They are only proposing to extend this Bill until the date of the next General Election, and they do not wish to implicate a subsequent Government in what they are doing. In those circumstances I, too, would not wish to divide the House.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I do not want to detain the House more than a few minutes and I would not have intervened but for some aspects of the speeches made by my hon. Friends, particularly the hon. Members for Sheffield. Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) and Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). They displayed a faith which is touching, but which my cynicism cannot possibly accept. If I really believed that the discipline of the money market could stimulate the State-run enterprises to function in a manner like that of a private enterprise. I would be with them, but my faith is not as great as that.
I believe that private enterprise has certain characteristics which cannot be artificially stimulated, and that this attempt by our party and by the party opposite to get the best of both worlds has failed abysmally. I agree that we shall have to make up our minds in the next five years or so on what we are going to do with the nationalised industries. I do not now want to go into the broad issues, although I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that they are not sufficiently dealt with in debate in this House.
I do not imagine for a moment that if one subjected these organisations to the discipline of the money market", as it is called, they would be in any way more efficient or less efficient than they are now. All that would happen would be that they would have increases in their costs, and that would in a sense be more

inflationary than the present system. Unless one were absolutely certain that the exercise of the discipline of the money market was sufficient to cause them to be more efficient, to take away the Treasury guarantee would merely mean an addition to their potential costs. Because of the structure and nature of nationalised industries, I do not believe that one can cause them to act like private enterprise organisations. Yet my hon. Friends take the view that they can. My hon. Friends have much more faith in nationalisation that I have.
The second point is to determine what is the least inflationary way of supplying the required capital. That is a most important matter to all of us. My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley said that we ought not to supply it out of revenue, but should obtain it on the open market. I am not sure that that is right. If there were an easy supply of capital funds, I would agree with him, but if one raises the money through the market it means that it has to come, in the main, out of past savings in some form or another. If one says, "We will reduce taxation", that in itself is agreeable, but if one reduced taxation it would be unlikely that more than 25 per cent. of it would be available for investment. I imagine that 75 per cent. would go into consumption.
Consequently, the method proposed by my hon. Friend, instead of being less inflationary, is much more violently inflationary than the present system. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West pointed out, the present system imposes an enormous burden on the Exchequer, a burden that we have all looked at with some distaste, but, disagreeable as it is, it is in essence, in so far as it is covered by revenue, less inflationary than the method proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley.

Sir P. Roberts: It seems to me that my hon Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) thinks that savings, either private or public, can be controlled by the Government of the day. I do not believe that that is so. There is an enormous amount of private saving going on all the time. All I am saying is that if one tries to use taxation as a method of public saving, whatever that may be, that in itself is inflationary. I would much rather reduce taxation and allow the


savings to come out of the private sector. It should not come out of current revenue.

Mr. Shepherd: If an adequate supply of savings and capital were available, what my hon. Friend said would without doubt be the proper course to take; but that is not the situation. Even with savings at their present high level there is a shortage of capital. In those circumstances—it is no good our talking about the ideal circumstances that we should like to see existing—the method suggested by my hon. Friend would be more inflationary than the present system.
The present financing of the nationalised industries is a terrible burden upon the whole community. It must be wrong. It is wrong because both parties have tried in one direction and another to make party politics out of these industries. In consequence, the industries are not recovering the amount of their capital which they could. There is no reason why they should not be allowed to recover half or two-thirds of their capital requirements. Yet for purely political reasons they have not been allowed to do so. I cannot go into the matter, but this has had a harmful effect on other aspects of our economy.
My hon. Friend should tell the Chancellor that we must turn away from the hopeless task of finding£500 million a year out of taxation to a policy of allowing and encouraging the nationalised industries to recover half or two-thirds of their capital requirements from their own earnings.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Surely the hon. Member means that the nationalised industries have been compelled to charge for their products lower prices than they should have done.

Mr. Shepherd: I have no doubt whatever that the price policy which has been forced upon the nationalised industries has had the effect of damaging the economy. I am satisfied that had a more genuine economic policy been applied to their prices there would not be some of the disadvantages that we see today. I have no hesitation in saying that I am prepared to see increases in the prices of nationalised products to enable the nationalised industries to recover a much larger share of their capital requirements from their own earnings. I hope that that is the line which my hon. Friend will take with the Chancellor.

5.27 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) in his plea that long-term State assets should not be created out of taxation. Whether it is an inflationary or a deflationary process, this is a matter turning on a very complex series of different circumstances, including whether it is funded debt or unfunded debt, whether it comes out of Treasury bills, what the public would do with the money which would be remitted to it if the Budget were balanced instead of being unbalanced, and so on.
I do not care to take issue on the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), but it seems to me to be an unwise policy for the simple reason that it is forcing people to take a different view of what the State does compared with what private enterprise does. In the normal way, everyone expects long-term assets to be borrowed by private enterprise out of loans or share issues on the market, and they do not expect to see, except to a small extent—it varies, of course, from company to company, the oil companies being the extreme—long-term assets financed out of current profits. Therefore, I think we should have a very much better recognition on the part of the public of the fairness and efficiency with which the nationalised industries were being conducted if we ceased to finance them out of budgetary savings, and I hope that in the end the Government will turn to that view and follow that policy.
I support the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in what he said about the capital expenditure programme and our consistent failure to debate it in the House. Year after year since the war there has undoubtedly been a capital expenditure programme. It was at first denied by Treasury Ministers; I think they were members of the Labour Government. Then my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, who was at that time the Economic Secretary, admitted that there was a capital investment programme; but we never had it debated.
We cannot debate it on the Budget; on the Budget we can talk about taxation only and not Supply, and we can never talk about it on Supply because Supply


is directed on a party basis into one channel or another according to the subject put down by the Opposition. Unless the Opposition ask for a debate on the capital investment programme and the financing of the nationalised industries, and what proportion the Treasury decides to put into one industry and another, we shall never get the subject debated in the House. I hope that that action will soon be taken.
I agreed very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said. He and I did battle together at 5.30 in the morning a year and a half ago. I am in broad sympathy with his views, but he has to face the ultimate position with all nationalised industries. Today, he seemed rather to qualify his position and to say that it was appropriate to send some nationalised industries to the money market while others should retain below the line balances.
To do that would impose a frightful discrimination and partiality between one nationalised industry and another, because what remains below the line can obviously attract a Treasury guarantee and is altogether a cheaper enterprise to finance, whereas an industry which goes to the market has to fight against the rough winds of current weather for the money which it wants. Ultimately, we must develop a policy which will send all the nationalised industries to the market at the same time.
The difficulty about the railways was mentioned. In present circumstances, where the railways are losing millions of pounds a year and are quite unprofitable, it is very difficult to see how they could be sent to the market and put into a credit-worthy position. I have held the view for some time that a drastic reorganisation of the railways—with which I cannot now deal in great detail—ought to take place. Broadly speaking, it would be that the transport stock would be taken over by the Treasury and brought into the Consolidated Fund, with the name changed, while at the same time the physical asset of the permanent way would be taken over. After that, it would immediately become interesting to send the regional boards to the market for sufficient finance for capital improvement schemes, as they would immediately become credit-worthy on their current

earnings and would probably be able to get very large sums on the market at a premium.
I support the Bill not so much because of its intrinsic merit or demerit, but because of the signs and portents which surround it. We should support it because of the apparent success of the Government's deflationary policy, signs of which the Bill contains. If the Government had said today that the money and not the time had run out, one would have concluded that they had had no success in curtailing the activities of the nationalised industries as they must be curtailed if those industries are to make their contribution to the deflationary policy. However, the Government have said that it is the time that has run out and not the money and that is evidence of success.
What my hon. and learned Friend said just now makes it fairly clear that we must expect a fairly tremendous piece of news in the Budget. Obviously, the Government are not trying to arrange things so that they arrive at next autumn without a policy and only allow the thing to dribble away until we are in the position in which we were before. They must have something in mind, something which will be announced in the Budget, which will be tantamount to a new savings policy which will enable the nationalised industries to go to the market and be supplied with savings when the time comes at the end of August.
I wonder whether today's news in the Daily Express and the Daily Telegraph about the new savings policy for the nation is not part and parcel of what will be revealed in the Budget. My hon. Friends and I have for long been asking for the mobilisation of the savings of the prosperous working class—and, thank goodness, it is prosperous—directly into the market, or in some way into the provision of capital for industry, both nationalised and private enterprise.
I rejoice to think that we may be on the verge of an announcement of that kind. It did not at all surprise me that the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) was so acid this afternoon. Of course, the Socialist Party is absolutely terrified of seeing finance being provided direct from the working classes into private industry, because that


will make the realisation of a nationalisation policy very much more difficult.
The working man will say, Why should I vote for Mr. Gaitskell and his friends"—[HON. MEMBERS: Order."] I am quoting what the working man will say—"—who wish to take away my shareholding in iron and steel and in various other commodities and services, which are a very happy source of income to me? We are grateful to the Tory Government for having introduced a savings policy which puts me into the position of being a capitalist and an investor in my country's future."

.5.37 p.m.

Mr. Simon: By leave of the House, I hope that I may be permitted briefly to reply to the debate. It has been an interesting debate which has ranged widely, as is quite permissible, from the very short point contained in the Bill. The main issue has been whether the nationalised industries should be financed by going to the market and raising their capital on their own credit, without Treasury guarantee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) raised the question of financing expenditure above and below the line in the Budget. In spite of all his blandishments, I regret that I cannot reply to that part of the debate. To do so would obviously prejudge what my right hon. Friend will have to say in due course. If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will forgive me, I do not propose either to deal with that archetypal image, the investment board, which arises in the Liberal Yellow Book. This is not a suitable opportunity to discuss that.

Mr. Grimond: I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman will read it with profit, nevertheless.

Mr. Simon: I read it long ago, in my youth, and it is barely remembered now.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) pointed out, in a most remarkable and interesting speech, this is a very narrow issue. When I moved the Second Reading, I was asked whether, if the system of Exchequer financing which is continued by the Bill were to lapse the former system would still be available. I said that I thought it would be and that is quite right. If

the system which was introduced in Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956, and which by this Bill is continued until the end of August, were to lapse, the powers that were formerly used—in other words, those under which the nationalised industries borrowed from the banks for their day-to-day needs, piling up quite big bank overdrafts and then coming to the market at inconvenient times with Treasury guarantees—would he revived.

Mr. Palmer: They would presumably derive those powers through their own Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Simon: That is so.
That was an inconvenient system. I am asked whether the present system has worked better, and the answer is that it has. The hon. Member also asked about the effect upon bank overdrafts. They have been substantially reduced under the new system, and that has made an important contribution to the general disinflationary policy of the Government. To go back to the former system, whereby the banks are called upon to snake large new advances to the nationalised industries, would in no way fit in with the policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) on 19th September last.
I must make it quite clear that when I used the word "review" I was not implying in any sense that the system which my right hon. Friend was going to introduce in the Budget and Finance Bill was the present system, the former system, or a third system. It was a completely neutral term. What I said was, "It should be considered in its proper context; in other words, the context of the general review of the Government's economic policy in the Budget." The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) seemed to find something sinister in that remark some of my hon. Friends seemed to find something exhilarating in it, and my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) found some signs and portents surrounding it. I must disclaim all that; it was a completely neutral term. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said, it is simply a holding operation, so that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor can unfold his plans in the proper context.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick even found something sinister in the word "August" appearing in the Bill. The word "blather" had been pronounced upon by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in the debate, but to find anything sinister in the word August "seems to be carrying the Othello complex, which animates hon. Members opposite, to quite inordinate lengths. The reason why August was chosen is that it is a convenient time, when the Finance Bill will have been passed; and the funds remaining available, totalling about£120 million, are expected to last to that date.
This is a narrow point. We seek to continue the present system until after the House is able to deal with the matter on a long-term basis in the Finance Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Willis.]

Committee Tomorrow.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES LOANS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue until the end of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, the power to make advances under section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1956, it is expedient to authorise any increase, attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session extending the said power as aforesaid, in the sums which, under the said section forty-two, are authorised or required to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing, or paid into the Exchequer.—[Mr. Simon.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

RECREATIONAL CHARITIES BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Clause 1.—(GENERAL PROVISION AS TO RECREATIONAL AND SIMILAR TRUSTS, ETC.)

5.45 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out "public benefit" and to insert:
benefit of the community or an appreciably important class or section of the community".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that it would be convenient to take with this Amendment the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Norwich. South (Mr. Rippon), in page 2, line 7, at the end to insert:
or of some appreciably important section of the community".

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The Amendments raise two distinct points, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should have thought that it would be much more convenient to the House if they were dealt with separately.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am in the hands of the House. I am merely given my instructions. If the House wishes to discuss the Amendments separately, so be it.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: On a point of order. Will you indicate the Amendments which you are going to call, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? There seems to be some overlapping.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I propose to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), in page 2, line 5, after "circumstances", to insert:
other than the circumstance of their employment by a particular employer".
I understand that the hon. Member for Norwich, South does not propose to move the Amendment in page 3, line 4, to leave out from "time" to "so" and to insert:
before the seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven".

Sir L. Heald: The House will remember that in Committee our discussions were slightly curtailed because there was


some misunderstanding as to the length of time which the proceedings were likely to occupy. Some very important matters were due to be taken next, and we were very glad to defer consideration of the point covered by the Amendment. We had in mind that we should be giving the Government an opportunity to consider the points raised by several hon. Members, and we thought that that would facilitate matters.
Unfortunately, any expectations that we might have had that there would be opportunity for discussion and consultation have come to nothing. We have not been given the opportunity of having any discussion. That is a pity, and it may be one reason why we have to deal with the two Amendments separately. If there had been an opportunity for discussion we might have been able to clarify matters. I make those preliminary observations not by way of complaint, but rather of regret that it results in slightly lengthening our proceedings, because it will be necessary to give a little preliminary explanation of the basis and object of the Amendment.
If I read the proviso it will simplify matters. It reads:
Provided that nothing in this section shall be taken to derogate from the principle that a trust or institution to be charitable must he for the public benefit.
That is a very broad statement of a principle that has been adopted in matters concerned with charity. On the other hand, in recent years difficulties have arisen in interpreting the words "for the public benefit," and in the most recent case—the very case that is being dealt with to some extent in the Bill, namely, the so-called Baddeley case—there was much discussion of that principle.
What is quite clear is that in that case it was fully recognised that the expression for the public benefit "had caused a good deal of difficulty and complication over many years, and that in itself it might be regarded as not sufficiently explicit. Lord Simonds, when giving the leading opinion in the case, referred specifically to the case of Williams Trustees and the Inland Revenue Commissioners, for which he had been responsible himself to a case called Goodman and the Saltash Corporation, which was a good deal earlier and, finally, to Verge v. Somerville, in which Lord Wrenbury, delivering the judgment of the Judicial

Committee, made certain observations on the point. Lord Wrenbury said that
To be a charity a trust must be for the benefit of the community or of an appreciably important class of the community.
That was a very important addition, because over the years there had been a great deal of argument—some of which was directed to the extent to which any class or section of the community could be the subject of a trust in the sort of circumstances with which we are concerned in relation to this Bill—that it must be for the public at large or the public as a whole. It is quite clear that it was the view of Lord Wrenbury that it was desirable to be more explicit on that point. The first reason why I ask that the words of the Amendment should be inserted in the Bill is that it is, according to the modern view and the highest authority, the proper way to state the principle. It is the way it is stated by Lord Wrenbury, by Lord Simonds in his judgment, and by Lord Reid who, in spite of that, arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion.
First, we suggest that we should make clear that Parliament is adopting the view which has been taken in these very important opinions. It is the fact, as we know—some of us from experience—that if Parliament pronounces on a matter of this kind and does not use the latest language used by the House of Lords, but, instead, uses language which appears in some earlier cases, the ground is open for ingenious persons afterwards to argue that this was intended to change matters, and intended to enact the law not as laid down in that case, but on some earlier principle.
That is why, in this case, we are concerned when we come to the next question. Here, I hope that I shall not offend, in view of what you said just now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and despite the objection of my right hon. and learned Friend. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker appreciated, and I am sure you have considered this matter very carefully—we know your great knowledge of these legal subjects—that it was not really possible to explain this Amendment without going over the page into the further wording of the Clause. Perhaps, therefore, I may ask the House to look for a moment or two at page 2 of the Bill. There, we find that there is this provision which it is necessary to satisfy in order to meet the


requirements of social welfare. First, the facilities have to be provided
…with the object of improving the conditions of life for the persons for whom the facilities are primarily intended.
There may be a discussion about that later, but for the moment we will take it for granted. Then, either one of two things have to be satisfied; first,
those persons have need of such facilities as aforesaid by reason of their youth, age, infirmity or disablement, poverty or social and economic circumstances;
or, on the other hand,
the facilities are to be available to the members or female members of the public at large.
The question in the minds of everyone concerned with these cases is in relation to the first of the two things which I have just read out. To what extent may these persons belong to a class or section or sub-division of the public rather than being all the people in the country who answer that particular description?
There are especially two divisions of people with whom we are concerned, one is geographical and the other religious. If one looks at the Baddeley case, in which, in the House of Lords, there was a diametrically opposite view taken by two of the learned Law Lords—with two of them making no contribution at all to the discussion and another deliberately abstaining from expressing any opinion—on this point there was a conflict of opinion. Both the learned Law Lords appeared to be agreed about the geographical section, that is to say, the inhabitants, provided that they otherwise satisfied the provisions as it is now proposed to be enacted. The geographical section was permissible, but regarding the religious section Lord Simonds said it was not and Lord Reid said it was.
The first thing we want to know is: what is the position under this Bill? The reason why I have referred to the part in page 2 of the Bill is that there is always the overriding provision, which is the one to which my Amendment is directed, that is to say in Clause 1, where the proviso says:
Provided that nothing in this section shall be taken to derogate from the principle…
If nothing is to derogate from the principle, how do we stand at the moment? Is it assumed that the principle is that

geographical and religious sections may both be in, or that they are both out, or that one is in and one out? Those of us who are interested in some of these recreational charities which are necessarily confined to sections, fear that there is real danger of the Bill being construed in such a way as to cut down what we think should be the extent of the class which is permissible.
I think that this has been said before, but perhaps it has not been emphasised sufficiently. It is found, in practice, that those persons who are minded to make charities of this kind frequently prefer not to make them available to all the people all over the country who have the particular disability or whatever it may be, but to benefit a particular locality. Often it is the area where they live. We should like to be clear about that.
The other question relates to the religious aspect of the matter. There is a strong view held by people concerned with these charitable matters that if Parliament is not careful about what it is doing there is a real danger of excluding those religious sections in circumstances where it is widely held that they ought to be retained.
This Amendment may be regarded by some of my hon. Friends as not going far enough. I am putting it forward, I do not say as a "peace offering" because I do not know that there is occasion for anything of that kind. That is what we were hoping to do when we thought we might have a chance to discuss the matter, but never mind about that now. I am putting it forward in the hope that the Government may be prepared to say, We are not going so far as to lay down specifically in this Bill what section or class may be regarded as sufficiently proper and comprehensive for this charitable purpose. But we are at any rate going to take the House and the country into our confidence and say that we want to make it quite clear that we are not intending to alter the law as it probably stands at present."
I hope that it will not be considered disrespectful to talk about the law as it "probably" stands at present. But when, on this difficult question of a class or section, the score in the House of Lords is one all, with three not voting at all. I do not think that anyone would regard it as disrespectful if one is not certain


about what the law is and what would happen next time; and there is something to be said for Parliament making the law clearer.
I see that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) is thinking about the words "trade union" and that I am being rather a black leg "over this question. But, fortunately, there are some who regard this from a broader point of view and it seems desirable that we should not encourage the people concerned to rush into fresh litigation which will come to the House of Lords all over again this time in order to decide a point that last time was left open.
6.0 p.m.
I therefore hope that the Amendment will be regarded as reasonable. I put it forward to elicit from my right hon. and learned Friend who is in charge of the Bill the position at the moment and the effect of the proviso. Can we be satisfied that the proviso preserves the position of the geographical and religious sections when it is read in conjunction with the complicated provisions which follow?
This legislation is unusual. In Clause 1 (1) we have a provision that something shall be
deemed always to have been charitable.
on certain conditions. Subsection (2) says:
The requirement of the foregoing subsection that the facilities are provided in the interests of social welfare shall not be treated as satisfied unless
Then follows a condition in paragraph (a). In paragraph (b) is a further limitation, divided into halves. It is about as complicated a way of making a statement about the law as one could devise. I respectfully suggest that it is desirable, having gone through that rather complicated process, that lawyers who deal with these matters should have, at the end, some idea of the net result. I doubt very much whether they will have it from the Bill as it stands.
I do not profess to more than a small knowledge of this subject, but I feel considerable doubt whether the geographical and religious sections are safeguarded as they ought to be. Other hon. Members know very much more about the subject than I do. The Bill as it is at present could be used by supporters of Lord Simonds's view as saying that it is intended to validate what he said, but it

could also be used by the supporters of Lord Reid to show that it is intended to support what he said. Is that a satisfactory position for our legislation?
I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) is rather nervous about the matter from another point of view. He thinks that this may be opening a door to some kind of works trust. Efforts have been made to erect charities for employees of particular businesses. I imagine that he does not think that it ought to be done. It is rather surprising that he seems to have come to the point of view that this provision widens the doorway to some extent for them. With such knowledge as I have had access to. I think that the effect is to narrow the access. Is it right that we should leave our legislation in this state?
My modest proposal is that we should, first, get the thing right by putting into the Bill the basic principle which is now accepted in relation to charities, and not the one which has been superseded by it. It is regarded by a number of people as possible to be read in conjunction with other parts of the Bill, to produce either a widening or a narrowing effect. We shall have to come back to this matter on later Amendments. I do not want to occupy time upon it now.
I apologise for having trespassed on my hon. Friend's ground to some extent. There is nothing inconsistent in my Amendment with other Amendments. It is the first stage of a process of clarification.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I wish to second the Amendment. I understand that on the Report stage an Amendment needs a seconder.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If it is not moved by a Privy Councillor.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In that case I beg to support the Amendment.
I imagine that the Attorney-General's objection will be that the Bill was never intended to do more than reverse the first point in the Baddeley case, and not to deal with the doubts raised in the second part of the two speeches in another place, to which my right hon. and learned Friend has referred. That being the religious objection, all that the Bill seeks


is to preserve that doubt in whatever state it was left when the Baddeley case left the Lords. It is a greaty pity that the oportunity was not taken to resolve that doubt.
I assume that it is not suggested that the doubt has been resolved by the Bill. If that is the suggestion, we should like to know in what sense it has been resolved; in favour of Lord Simonds, or of Lord Reid? It must be common ground that the Bill preserves the doubt, and I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether that is a good thing to do when we go to the trouble to bring in legislation dealing with charities. It is an extraordinarily timid approach.
People want to know which of these two views is right, and here is a great chance to tell them. Yet, for some reason or other, the opportunity is not taken; the Government have flinched. There may be very good reasons for the flinching, but we have not yet heard them. It is not as though this were a simple Bill. It is complicated, and it needs to be, because the Government's motive -it is a very fine one—is to preserve as charities a few specified organisations which they and we feel should be privileged. They are the Women's Institutes and the Missions to Seamen. Around that desire they have woven a most complicated web of words and produced a complicated Bill. Why, then, do they not go a stage further and resolve the doubt about the geographical and religious limitations? The case of the Mayor of Saltash has caused all sorts of problems in the minds of judges dealing with charities for many years. The state of the law on charities, as has been recognised all round, is still complicated, obscure and ambiguous. It seems a thousand pities that the opportunity has not been taken to make a little clearance in the jungle.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) began by complaining that there had been no consultation with him and no opportunity for discussion with him about the Bill since it passed the Committee stage. I think it only right to say that neither in the course of the Committee stage nor at any time thereafter have any requests been received

from him or his hon. Friends for any discussion about the Bill. I should also say that if he had made any such request I, or my hon. and learned Friend, would have been only too glad to discuss the matter with him. In fact, the matter he has raised today was debated twice in the course of the Committee stage and answered from this Dispatch Box.
Having listened to my right hon. and learned Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) I cannot help feeling that perhaps more consideration might have been given both to what was said in explaining the Bill on Second Reading and in the course of the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Darwen said that the Bill was to reverse the decision in the Baddeley case. I had hoped we had made it clear that that was not the intention or the desire in the Bill. The Baddeley decision stands. It is not being reversed. If any other case comes before the courts on all fours with the Baddeley case, the case will be decided in the light of that decision in the House of Lords. I hope I have made that clear.
The Bill seeks to ensure that those charities which were regarded as charities before the Baddeley decision shall remain charities despite the doubts cast on their particular trust deeds by the decision in the Baddeley case with regard to the terms dealing with recreation in that trust. We have made that clear more than once. That is a limited objective, but, as my hon. Friend said, it is a difficult one to achieve as a matter of drafting. We believe that we have achieved it; we have given it most careful and prolonged consideration. It has been considered from that point of view also in another place.
It is easy for persons familiar with the law of charity to point out many matters in relation to that law which are not very clearly resolved, about which different views may be taken, about which disputes and indeed, litigation, may occur. They have chosen to fasten only on one point in the law of charity, which was dealt with to some extent in the opinions given in the House of Lords in that case, and not on the many others. I should say to my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend that we are not seeking to do more in this Bill than to try to make it clear that those charities which,


if I may use the expression, were put in peril by the Baddeley decision in regard to recreation, will remain charities after the Bill becomes an Act.
6.15 p.m.
As my right hon. and learned Friend is aware, there were many worthy charities, many worthy institutions—I think my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned a number on Second Reading—which have always been regarded as charitable in law and which everyone would agree ought to enjoy the benefits which the law allows to charities. That is what the Bill is intended to deal with.
My right hon. and learned Friend asked on the Committee stage, and I think again today, what would happen if the Baddeley question was raised again. The answer is that the case would have exactly the same result.
I would remind the House that the Government announced three years ago their intention of preserving the existing case law on charity. That being our intention, I come to the reason for the proviso to subsection (1). It was thought advisable ex abundanti cautela to insert that provision expressly preserving the existing law, for, whatever doubts there may- be about particular aspects of the law on charity, I should have thought that there is no doubt whatsoever about the proposition that all charities must be for the public benefit. The reason for this proviso, which I have explained before, is that if we did not have it subsection (1) might comprehend a number of institutions which are not now regarded as charitable and which never have been. It has been inserted ex abundanti cautela and we regard it as necessary that those words should remain.
The Amendment proposes that those words should be left out. I cannot advise the House to take that course. My right hon. and learned Friend moved that in the place of those words should be inserted the words:
benefit of the community or an appreciably important class or section of the community".
He said that was part of a process of clarification. I beg leave to disagree with him about that. I should not have thought that a court which found any real difficulty in deciding whether a particular trust was for the public benefit

would find it so much easier to decide that a trust was for the
benefit of the community or an appreciable important class or section of the community ''
The real answer to my right hon. and learned Friend is that it was this very test which he proposes should be made statutory which was being applied by the learned judges he has quoted as giving dissenting judgments in the Baddeley case. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, the test he proposes is already laid down by the highest courts in the land and all the differing judges applied that test expressly or by implication.
I have said that the test my right hon. and learned Friend proposes is the right test, but it is only one test. He has referred to observations by Law Lords on the matter, but I am sure he would agree that language which is appropriate in one context may not be appropriate in another, and language which may be appropriate, and indeed precise, in a judgment delivered in court may be inapt and vague in an Act of Parliament.
I do not think that those Law Lords referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend were seeking to give an exhaustive definition of public benefit. After all, the question is not one solely of the class of beneficiaries of a trust. The test of "public benefit" as it has been applied by the courts over the years, excludes, on the ground that it is not public, anything in the nature of private profit, if the House were to accept the Amendment and put in the proposed words instead of the words "public benefit" that test would be eliminated. I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I doubt very much whether it would be possible to provide a more useful definition of what is comprehended by an
important class or section of the community.
Each case must depend upon its particular facts.
I must resist the Amendment, which would, I believe, have the effect of considerably broadening the scope of Clause 1 (1) and enabling institutions to come within the ambit of that Clause which could not with all the proper tests applied be regarded as institutions for the public benefit.
My right hon. and learned Friend made some reference to various kinds of


charities. All I can say to him about that is that it is our view that those charities which were charities before Baddeley and in relation to which doubts have been created by the decision in that case will as a result of the Bill be able to continue to enjoy the status of charities. I can assure him that this is a Bill which has been very carefully considered over a long period of time. He has stressed the necessity for Parliament being very careful about what it is doing. I entirely agree, and it is in that spirit, and because of the need of being very careful in this field, that I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Sir L. Heald: I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for making his decision so clear. The decision he has made clear is that in no circumstances is he prepared to consider any possibility of any amendment of this Bill, although whether that is a view that commends itself to the House is not for me to say. However, I feel that there is one thing I ought to say. I am very——

Mr. Speaker: I called the right hon. and learned Gentleman because I thought that he was going to take a certain course with this Amendment. He is not entitled, except by leave of the House, to make a second speech on a Bill which has been through Committee of the whole House.

Sir L. Heald: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. However, my right hon. and learned Friend did say something about there having been no consultation and my having made complaint about it, and I thought that it was right that I should make the position clear. I ask the leave of the House to do that, and I am sure the House will accord it to me, because it would be very unfortunate if any misunderstanding took place, above all between my right hon. and learned Friend and myself, I hope I may say.
I am sure that there is misunderstanding about that. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has been away at Geneva on very important business. While he was away we did say to my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, sitting next to my right hon. and learned Friend, that we should like to have a discussion with him about the

matter, and we were very hopeful there was going to be one. I was informed yesterday afternoon that my right hon. and learned Friend had returned from Geneva and that he did not think that any discussion would be of any value.
So far as I am personally concerned. I should like to make it clear that what I said was not by way of complaint but merely a statement of what is the actual fact, that I think it was rather a pity that, owing to a misunderstanding, we did not get the chance of discussing it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, after "circumstances", to insert:
other than the circumstance of their employment by a particular employer".
The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill does not open the door to abuse; or perhaps I should say to undesirable use. I think it will be agreed by everyone that proper facilities for recreation ought to be put on the same footing as, for example, education. Indeed, the two are so closely linked together that most people have thought that they went together, and that led to the Baddeley case.
The law does not allow private persons or companies to make educational trusts in favour of particular classes of people such as relatives and employees. In that way they could escape certain kinds of taxation and otherwise put themselves in a favourable position for purposes which would not be either in the eye of the law or in the eye of the layman strictly charitable. I fear that this Bill as at present drafted may have that effect in regard to these particular trusts, the recreational trusts.
Let me read the operative words of Clause 1:
…it shall be…charitable to provide…facilities for recreation…if the facilities are provided in the interests of social welfare".
Those are the operative words, and if they stood alone I think it is quite clear that trusts of the kind which I have suggested could be created under the Bill. The remaining words of the Clause all limit and cut down these opening words. The question which worries me is whether


they cut them down sufficiently. There is a proviso, which we have just been discussing, to the effect that
a trust…to be charitable must be for the public benefit.
But we find set up by the words I first read and the words in the proviso that there is some antithesis between the expression "social welfare", on the one hand, and the expression public benefit", on the other, and for my part I find it rather difficult to understand just what the difference between those expressions is in ordinary reading, or what is intended in accordance with the meaning of the Bill.
The expression "public benefit" itself is simply not defined in the Bill. It appears once and is left there. The expression "social welfare" is defined. Clause 1 (2) defines the expression in accordance with two tests. The first test is contained in subsection (2, a), which says that the facilities must be for improvement in the conditions of life of the persons concerned.
I think that everyone will agree that that is reasonable and proper, and no Amendment has been put down to the words. In subsection (2, b) one, and one only, of a number of conditions must be fulfilled. I call the attention of the House to the fact that under this paragraph the conditions are alternative to one another, and one only has to be fulfilled.
There is only one of those conditions relative to my Amendment, and that is the one which says that the persons concerned must
have need of such facilities…by reason of their…social and economic circumstances.
The expression "social and economic circumstances" is fairly easily understood. It is not more precisely defined, but I think that it would be generally agreed that, normally speaking, it refers to the kind of employment of the people concerned. Indeed, I find it rather difficult to think of any other circumstances which can be said to be simultaneously social and economic.
6.30 p.m.
It is right to encourage the provision of playing fields and similar facilities for the members of a particular trade. I do not think that anybody would object to

the formation of recreational trusts of this kind for sailors, miners and similar classes of the community. But it is another thing to do so for a particular business. In such a case the firm may contribute out of its earnings to the maintenance of recreational facilities and it may be able to charge this against its profits and thus escape certain taxation.
If so, that should be done in accordance with the general law relating to taxation and not by means of a charitable trust. I think it wrong that a large and wealthy business may be enabled by such a Bill as this to create trusts of a kind which would enable it to take advantage of the Bill to give its own employees especially favourable treatment.
That is the situation which the Amendment is designed to meet. I listened to what the Attorney-General said on the last Amendment and it is not improbable that the answer which I shall receive is that the point is taken care of by the proviso to subsection (1). In referring to that proviso, however, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said candidly that it was inserted, to use his own expression, ex abundanti cautela. In other words, it is not intended to be operative. It is merely there to show that the ordinary rules of the law would apply. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said in his argument, the law in connection with classes of persons who benefit is left entirely open.
If that had been the point on which the decision in the Baddeley case had turned, the probability is that the decision would have been the other way round. One cannot be sure, but the Attorney-General indicated clearly that the Bill was not intended to deal with that point in any way. The position seems at least to be open to doubt that the Bill will enable individuals and businesses to take advantage of its provisions to set up recreational trusts for the particular advantages of their own employees. If there is any question of that, then I think it ought not to be left open to doubt but ought to be cleared up by some such Amendment as this.

Mr. Philip Bell: I beg to second the Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to make sure that athletics clubs belonging


to large industries or nationalised industries, for instance, are not treated as charities. I can see that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State is writing the answer down, and it is, "Never mind about that; look at the proviso which says that it must be for public benefit, and if the recreational facilities are available only to a class of people it would not be for the public benefit."
So far so good, but we must go a little further. Let us look at subsection (3). It starts with these words, "Subject to the said requirement…" What is "the said requirement"? It is
The requirement of the foregoing subsection that the facilities are provided in the interests of social welfare".
Subject to that, therefore, subsection (1)—not the proviso to subsection (1), because that is in a different paragraph—applies.
It is not limited to some people, because the next words are "in particular". This possibly means that the words, freed from the proviso, apply
to the provision of facilities at village halls, community centres and women's institutes…
I submit that it is a possible interpretation that subsection (3) has not introduced the proviso at all and that once we overcome the hurdle of social welfare it is not necessary for us to comply with the proviso.
My hon. and learned Friend will probably tell me that he does not agree and that the proviso is included. He may say, "The proviso is included. You need not worry; works clubs would not qualify because the proviso is introduced." He may say, "When we say 'subsection (1) of this Section applies', we mean subsection (1) including the proviso to subsection (1)." If that be true, then the works club will be excluded.
It is a matter of some doubt whether that is true, but let us suppose that my hon. and learned Friend is right. What are the consequences to be considered? The consequences must be that Catholic boys clubs would be excluded, because they would be limited to a section of the public and would not be for the public benefit. Equally, a Methodist reading club would be excluded. The reading and the athletics would meet the requirements in these cases, but we have some

authority for saying that if the recreation is limited to a section of the people—Catholics—or if the reading is limited to another section—Methodists—then the facilities would not comply with the law. There is some support for that, because
village halls, community centres and women's institutes
have a link which is merely geographical and is not, for instance, religious.
I think that my hon. and learned Friend is on the horns of a dilemma, because if subsections (2) and (3) as they stand are sufficient to exclude what I call works clubs, then they also exclude some other clubs. I think that this point should be made clear. In an effort to have it made clear, I associate myself with the Amendment.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I entirely agree with the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) in moving the Amendment, but I do not fully agree, for reasons which I shall explain, with the second motive expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell).
Having expressed my agreement to that extent with the first motive put forward, I can assure my hon. Friends that the Amendment is not necessary in order to achieve their object. Fortunately, my argument has been anticipated by both my hon. Friends. I must, however, go through the relevant portions of the Bill in order to emphasise that what they anticipated to be the position is in fact the position.
It is the case that the proviso to subsection (1) retains that important part of the law of charitable trusts that a trust must be to the public benefit in order to be charitable. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East said that a difficulty may arise in subsection (3), because he said that when subsection (3) refers to subsection (1) it may not refer to the proviso to that subsection. The answer is that when a proviso is contained in a subsection it is part of the subsection, and a later reference to the subsection must be deemed to include reference to the proviso too. There is not the slightest doubt that Clause 1 (3) must be read in the light of the whole of subsection (1), and therefore the public benefit test applies.
There are two principal reasons why my hon. Friend's Amendment is not necessary. The first is that the public benefit test is undoubtedly retained for this Bill as a whole, because, as my hon. Friend rightly said, the principal operative provision of the Bill is in subsection (1), and by retaining the public benefit test there, we retain that part of the law of charity which has already been clearly decided in establishing and defining public benefit.
I could give a long disquisition to the House on the way in which the courts have applied the public benefit test to charitable trusts, but I will shorten the matter by saying that it is a variable test. When particularly needy classes are made beneficiaries of a charitable trust, a much smaller section of the population and a much smaller number of people are deemed capable of benefiting from a valid charitable trust. When, on the other hand, the trust is intended not so much to benefit a particularly needy class, but merely to fulfil a particular charitable purpose, a much broader section of the public is required in order to satisfy the public benefit test.
The courts, in applying that very general proposition, which I hope I have not over-simplified, have considered this specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South relating to an attempt by a particular employer or a particular company to establish an educational trust, the beneficiaries of which would be merely the children of its own employees. That was so in the case of Oppenheim v. Tobacco Securities Trust, and it was held in that case that, though the group of persons indicated was pretty numerous, the nexus between them was employment by a particular employer or group of employers. Therefore, the trust did not satisfy the public benefit test, and therefore it was not charitable.
There is that clear and unchallenged decision of the law, and, indeed, if I recollect correctly, that case was decided by the House of Lords. By saving the law of public benefit we have saved that decision of the House of Lords, and, therefore, if anybody tried to take advantage of the words in the Bill "social and economic circumstances" to establish such a trust, they would be certain to fail. Doubts have been expressed on

several matters in the Bill, but that is not a matter which admits of doubt, and I hope my hon. Friends will go with me thus far.
There is another reason why, in order to achieve my hon. Friend's objective, his Amendment is not necessary. It overlaps to some extent the first reason which I have just given. It is that these words "social and economic circumstances" will have to be construed by the courts for their meaning, and I am advised that, even taking these words alone and omitting the various other criteria which will have to be applied in order to satisfy the public benefit test or the social welfare test, it is most unlikely that any court would hold that a trust in favour of the employees and the children of employees of a particular employer would be said to be justified by raising the "social and economic circumstances" of the people concerned.
6.45 p.m.
Therefore, for these two reasons, I am able to assure my hon. Friend that his Amendment is not necessary. May I, however, add that I am very glad that he has raised the matter, in order that I can clarify the position. I think that the only other point which I should perhaps mention is that a very fair comment was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East when he said that the Government had acted ex abundanti cautela in putting in the proviso to subsection (1), and when he suggested that if we can act in that way, why should not that be done. I would say to him that the fact that we have acted ex abundanti cautela by putting in the proviso makes it unnecessary for the House also to act ex abundanti cautela in regard to my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Philip Bell: Would my hon. and learned Friend confirm or deny that, for instance, a Catholic boys' club or a Methodist reading room would be free to be treated as "social welfare"?

Mr. Renton: I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not be angry with me, but I purposely did not deal with the matter, because, although you, Mr. Speaker, have not ruled my hon. and learned Friend out of order, there did not seem to be any justification on this Amendment for dealing with religious


charities, because the Amendment deals with the circumstances of employees of a particular employer.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that explanation. I think it will be noted with interest outside the House, and, in these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end to insert:
or of some appreciably important section of the community".
We had some discussion on this subsection during the Committee stage of the Bill, and, to some extent, we have covered the ground in the debate on my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment which was taken earlier. However, it is at the express wish of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that this is being taken separately, and, indeed, it may be considered to raise a slightly different point.
As we left the matter in Committee, we seemed to have come to the conclusion that unless one is a juvenile, senile or a person incapacitated, one cannot participate in the benefits of a recreational charity without women. We left unanswered in Committee two further questions. First, from how wide an area must the women be drawn? Secondly, can they be limited to one particular denomination? It all depends on the interpretation of the phrase "public at large", which is not the same thing as "for the public benefit", with which we have been dealing, and which is a phrase more commonly known and understood.
We are bound, I think, to revert to the trouble that this Bill—which, in spite of all the arguments which have been adduced by my hon. and learned Friends in favour of not altering one single comma in it, still has much to commend it—only deals with one of the two main points of difficulty raised in the Baddeley case. I accept what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said about the Baddeley case—that the decision is not, in fact, reversed—but the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill says that the object of the Bill is to

remove doubts about governing instruments which often contain terms similar to those considered in the Baddeley case. It is, therefore, a little surprising to hear the view advanced that, in spite of the Bill, the decision in the Baddeley case would still be the same in future.
We are left in some doubt as to what the effect of the Bill really is. However, we are all hoping that it clears up the existing doubt about what is or is not a recreational charity. What it does not do is to help us in defining what is a sufficient section of the public to satisfy the test of public benefit for the purposes of a recreational charitable trust. We have already heard, and I shall not cover the ground again, of the differences of opinion in the Baddeley case, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has referred.
Whether or not the Baddeley decision is reversed by this Bill, or whatever effect the Bill has upon that decision, it is certainly unknown what the decision in that case would have been had the issue simply been what did or did not constitute a sufficient class of the community. That really is the point on which, even at this late stage, we hope to be given some assurance. I am sure, and so, I think, are many other hon. Members, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey is quite right when he says that there are many people today who feel that it might not be safe for them to do what they want to do, namely, to leave their money to, say, Methodists in Norwich for the purposes of what would otherwise be a valid recreational charity.
Indeed, the whole point that is raised by this Amendment is that the position may, perhaps, be worse under the Bill than it was before. It is true that in the Baddeley case, what was being considered was a restricted class within a restricted area—Methodists, or potential Methodists in the area of West Ham or Leyton—and it has always been assumed that, in spite of the differences of opinion in the Baddeley case, there would not be much difficulty about a gift for all the inhabitants of Norwich, without restriction of class. The geographical area would be sufficient. Equally, there might be no difficulty about a trust for all the Methodists in England, because, there, the area would be wider.
It has been felt, however, that this phrase "public at large", unqualified, might have some restrictive effect and might tend, as my right hon. and learned Friend indicated, to support the opinion of Lord Simonds. But even if it does not, but supports, rather, the opinion of Lord Reid, let us be told. In a recent case under Section 8 of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, it was held that the miners of Derbyshire constituted a sufficient class to satisfy the test of social welfare for the purposes of that Act. But I suggest that the miners of Derbyshire are not the "public at large", and would not satisfy the test contained in this Bill. That must be clear, otherwise there would be no need for the special provision in Clause 2 to validate miners' welfare trusts.
That raises the question: if miners in Derbyshire are out, are Methodists in Norwich also out? It might well be the wish of the House that people should feel as free in future as in the past to give money for what would otherwise constitute a valid recreational trust within the terms of this Bill. To add, as the Amendment suggests, the phrase:
or some appreciably important section of the community".
which is the well-known, and widely quoted phrase of Lord Wrenbury, would, at least, preserve the status quo, as was urged so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey earlier in the debate.

Mr. Philip Bell: I think that I was misunderstood earlier by my hon. and learned Friend. I was not asking about religious charities. I am not talking about whether——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. and learned Member second the Amendment?

Mr. Bell: Yes, indeed, and I am glad to use the opportunity of saying that:
…some appreciably important section of the community
was the point I was trying to get at.
In order that I may not be misunderstood, let me give a specific example. Is the Bolton Catholic Boys' Club, which provides football, boxing, chess, ping-pong, and the like, to be a charity? If public benefit requires it to be not merely for a locality but to be open to

everybody, that club may not qualify, because, from the Baddeley case, we know what grave doubts there are on the point.
We know that if there is a locality, and that within it the charity is cut down to Methodists, it loses whatever benefit it might have had. What I am afraid of here is that unless words such as those suggested in the Amendment are used, some denominational athletic ventures will be cut out because of the reference to public benefit. The example I have given is not a religious charity. Boxing is the same sport, whether undertaken by Methodists or Catholics.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon), in a speech for which I am grateful, seemed to be attempting to achieve two perfectly consistent purposes. One was to probe, in order that we could elucidate the term "public at large", and the other was to try, somehow, to modify the meaning and effect of sub-paragraph (ii) of Clause 1 (2, b) by adding the words:
or of some appreciably important section of the community
In his opening remarks my hon. Friend referred again to the Baddeley case, and pointed out, if I understood him correctly, that he was anxious to see that trusts of the kind held not to be valid charities in the Baddeley case would be held to be valid charities in future. He will, I am sure, correct me if I have not understood him. To answer him on that part, perhaps the safest and clearest thing for me to do would be to repeat, if I may, something that I said on Second Reading. I then said:
Our policy, therefore, is not to enlarge the definition of charity or to make new classes of trusts charitable, or to admit to the field the particular type of trust which was rejected by the House of Lords in the Baddeley case. Our policy is to distinguish from that type of trust those which have in the past been regarded as charitable and ought to be restored unequivocably to that position.
However hard I had burnt the midnight oil, I do not think that I could have distilled the essence of the Bill more than I did in that Second Reading speech. I would ask my hon. Friend to bear that statement in mind.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East, rather by the same


token, invites me to say whether or not the Bolton Boxing Boys' Club is a charity——

Mr. Bell: Catholic.

Mr. Renton: I have not had the great advantage of seeing the trust instrument, but, again, I think that my best answer to my hon. and learned Friend is to quote again from the same speech that I made on Second Reading. I said:
There is one thing which I must stress before explaining the Bill to the House. The question whether a particular trust will be charitable under the Bill can only be decided by a court when construing a particular trust instrument."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 320–1.]
I am not going to be so foolish, without seeing the trust instrument, as to attempt to answer my hon. and learned Friend's question.
7.0 p.m.
Coming to the question of the meaning of the words "public at large", as has been pointed out before, we have not defined social welfare, but we have laid down several conditions precedent before any facilities can be said to be provided in respect of social welfare. We say that always the facilities must have the object of improving the conditions of life of the persons for whom they are primarily intended. We say that either those persons must have need of the facilities, for various reasons which are stated, or that they must
be available to the members or female members of the public at large.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South when he says that the expression, "the public at large" has not the same kind of meaning as the expression "public benefit" which is so well known in the law of charity. This will, of course, be for the courts to interpret in future. The most accurate and succinct definition which I can give to my hon. Friend is to say that facilities will be for the benefit of the public at large if they are available to the inhabitants of a locality, of a town or village

or group of villages. Of course, they will probably not be for the benefit of the public at large if they are for the benefit merely of the inhabitants, say, of one street.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South made a suggestion for removing a doubt, if there is a doubt. We do not think that there is a doubt to be removed, but my hon. Friend's suggestion, if I may say so with respect, would certainly be a very dangerous way of rectifying the matter. His Amendment would be far reaching in its effect and would have the result that, irrespective of the need of the beneficiaries, a narrow section of the community could benefit from a trust providing it with recreational facilities. That section could benefit merely so long as it was considered to be an important section of the community. It would not even have to be a substantial section numerically, and we should, in fact, be making sectional welfare the test instead of social welfare. The conception of charity would be thus extended beyond all previous definitions, which is the very thing we are anxious not to do in this limited operation.
All kinds of examples come to mind of what might be considered an important section of the community—trade union leaders, lords lieutenants, doctors, the Welsh in London—thereby overruling the case of Williams. We do not know where the courts would draw the line between "important" and "unimportant". I am sure that lawyers would be considered an unimportant section any way.
For those reasons, we cannot accept the Amendment, but, in so far as it was a probing Amendment, I hope that my hon. Friends will accept my explanation.

Mr. Rippon: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(DISCHARGE OF COMMITTAL ORDERS BY MAGISTRATES' COURTS.)

Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment, a magistrates' court may at any time discharge an order which it has made for the committal of any person to prison for failure to comply with a maintenance order.—[Mr. J. Silverman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This, of course, is the new Clause which was moved during the Committee stage of the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). The Joint Under-Secretary of State may remember that he promised to look at the matter thoroughly and with an open mind. I assume that he has done that, but we find nothing to indicate that he has accepted what we have in mind. Because we believe that this is an extremely important principle, we are bringing forward the new Clause again.
The Clause deals with committal orders made by magistrates, the position being that, once a defaulting husband is committed to prison in respect of arrears, the magistrates, having made a committal order, cannot discharge it; either the debt must be paid or the sentence must proceed inexorably, the man serving three months. In the light of the provisions of the Bill, we believe that this would be very unsatisfactory.
In Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the wording of the new Clause, saying:
Magistrates' courts do not make orders—in the words of the proposed Clause
…for the committal…for failure to comply with a maintenance order'.
They issue warrants of commitment to enforce payment of a sum due and unpaid under a maintenance order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 18th February, 1958; c. 335.]
That is not really the position at all. It cannot be said that orders of commitment are used to enforce payment. In fact, they have precisely the opposite effect, because once a man has served

his term of imprisonment he emerges from it free from any debt in respect of the arrears at all. Therefore, far from enforcing it, they ensure that payment is not made after the man has served his sentence of imprisonment. It is this particular function of the committal order as at present made which the new Clause is designed, to some extent, to mitigate or remove. It is suggested that magistrates should have the opportunity to discharge orders.
The Bill, of course, introduces certain very important new principles. There is the principle of the registration of an order in the high court or county court, or, again, from the high court or county court into the magistrates' court. Also, the principle of attachment is introduced. Both are extremely important new principles, and we suggest that the Government ought to look at the law relating to committal in the light of them. After all, we are assured—I do not doubt that it is its purpose—that the Bill is intended to prevent people being sent to prison in the first place, and, in addition, to ensure that wives and others who should benefit under orders get their money.
In short, it is a waste of public funds and not common sense to send a man to prison to purge a debt when what is required is to see that the wife gets the money for herself and the children, or that the woman who has an affiliation order gets the money. That is the object.
This Clause deals with certain practical possibilities which are likely to arise. Suppose the magistrates make a committal order. After it is made it may emerge that the man against whom the order is made is in good and regular employment and that an attachment order would be more appropriate, which would secure that the money is paid to the wife. I suppose that that is what everybody wants, instead of the man being sent to prison. Under the new Clause the committal order could be discharged and an attachment order made. That would meet everybody's convenience, and the convenience of the public.
Suppose it emerges after a committal order has been made that the man against whom it is made has a sum of money in the bank or other funds against which garnishee proceedings could be taken and


that the appropriate remedy would be registration in the High Court or county court, as is contemplated in Section 1. Under those circumstances, the committal order could be discharged and the necessary proceedings could be taken. There again, there would be the sensible arrangment of the man not going to prison or not completing his prison sentence and the woman or other beneficiary would get her money, which is the object. That is prevented as the law now stands.
This is a reasonable proposal to help to secure the objects of the Bill—to keep men out of prison and to see that deserted wives or other beneficiaries get their money.
We were not satisfied with the replies and explanations given by the Joint Under-Secretary in Committee. One question concerns the machinery. A warrant may have been issued which has to be executed by a policeman, say, in Cornwall in respect of an order which was made by a magistrate's court in another part. What would happen if that order were discharged? It is not outside the wits of either the courts or police forces to make the machinery suit the case. Surely it is possible, in these days of rapid communications, to ensure that a telegram is sent to the police station or police authority in Cornwall so that the warrant is withdrawn and not executed.
We are not insisting upon having this word or that word inserted in the Bill. We say that the principle in the new Clause should be adopted. We want to secure the objects of the Bill and to give it a fair chance of operating. We hope, even at this late stage, that the Minister will accept the Clause and the principle which it embodies.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Niall MacDermot: I beg to second the Motion.
Perhaps I may say a few words on the question of the procedural difficulties to which the Minister referred during the Committee stage.
Since the Committee stage, I have discovered that the Debtors Act, 1878, provided that the court—it would be either the High Court or a county court—should have the power to grant or refuse any application to stay the operation of any writ, process or order for the discharge

from arrest or imprisonment thereunder of a person who had been committed to prison in certain circumstances under the Debtors Act, 1869. There would, therefore, appear to be a clear precedent in that Act for granting procedure to the court to discharge an order with a wide latitude and discretion to the court as to how it should exercise its power.
At the moment, the only circumstance in which an order for the committal of a man to prison can be discharged under the magistrates' courts procedure is if the debt is paid off either in full or in part. The prison sentence is remitted either in whole or in part until the debt is repaid.
I hope that the Minister will not put up procedural arguments against this new Clause. If there are objections to the wording of it, that is something which can be corrected, and we should be glad to withdraw the Clause if the Minister would undertake to introduce a more happily worded Clause in another place. It would help the general object of the Bill if there were given to the magistrates a general power to discharge committal orders.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): It is true, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) has said, that during Committee stage I undertook to consider this point. I stressed at the time that I did so without commitment. I have considered the point very thoroughly myself and have taken advice upon it.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the merits of the Clause. It is very tempting to assimilate, as far as possible, the procedures of the High Court, county courts and magistrates' courts and to remove what appear to be anomalies. But that is not the purpose of the Bill. We have to take the existing procedures as we find them and not as we should like them to be. If we started to tinker about with the procedures to suit the immediate convenience of the Bill, we should get into great trouble. A Bill to alter the procedure of courts, even magistrates' courts, is a major operation. One day, no doubt, we shall have another magistrates' courts Bill. The last one was in 1952. When we have another Bill we shall take care, because we have already noted the point, to ensure that this point is considered.

Mr. J. Silverman: Why not put it in the Bill now?

Mr. Renton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be patient for a moment.
We do not feel that it would be right to make this change for the purpose of commitment for maintenance order debts when we would be leaving still outstanding commitment for other kinds of debts by the magistrates' courts. For that reason, among others which were mentioned in Committee, and which the hon. Member for Aston briefly described again today, we are unable to accede to his request. He described his reason for submitting the Clause, which I thought was a perfectly valid one. I can summarise the position by saying that there would have to be a large number of warrants chasing about the country. He described that as a bad reason. I think that it is a good reason, but perhaps we can agree to differ upon that.
The main practical anxiety which hon. Gentlemen may well be entitled to have concerns the transitional period, and people who may have been put into prison recently and people who may be put into prison between now and the coming into operation of the Bill. May I say a word about that matter? Under Clause 19 (3) the appointed day for the coming into operation of the Bill will not be the date of the Royal Assent, but will be the date that the Home Secretary indicates by Order.
The courts will therefore get good warning of the Bill's coming into operation. For all we know, many may be assuming already that the Bill is coming into operation and have anticipated it by making suspended committal orders. That is a simple solution to any difficulty in the transitional period, and one which most probably many courts are already following. So, between the passing of the Bill and the appointed day courts will have full and formal warning, and I do not think difficulty will arise.
A suspended committal order can be replaced under the Bill by an attachment of earnings order. I should have thought that was probably a better way of handling the matter than by making a fairly fundamental change of this kind in the procedure of magistrates' courts.

Mr. Charles Royle: I am concerned about what the hon. and

learned Gentleman has said and I do not think he has answered completely the points made by my hon. Friends. During our discussion of the various Amendments tonight we shall hear a great deal on the question of imprisonment in connection with these orders. It seems to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman is resting his case on future legislation. If, as he suggests, it would be a good thing to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman), is not this the time to do it? When all is said and done, the 1952 Act was to a large degree a consolidation Measure. It brought in many things that had needed to be done for a long time prior to 1952. I suggest that the Home Office may find it difficult in the next few years to introduce a better Measure than the 1952 Act to take in other things.
I suggest respectfully, therefore, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks this is a good idea, this is the time to adopt it, rather than to wait until the dim and distant future for a consolidating Measure.

Mr. David Weitzman: I listened carefully to the reply made by the Joint Under-Secretary of State and I was waiting to hear what practical objection there was to the proposed Clause. I had a little experience of these matters some years ago, and I cannot understand what practical objection there can be to what is suggested. During the Second Reading of the Bill it was made clear in the speech of the Home Secretary that one of its objects was to ensure that people do not crowd into our prisons, that as few people as possible are committed, and that they are there for as short a time as possible. If we can achieve that object by not keeping these people in prison, we ought to make every possible effort in this Bill.
This is a simple Clause. All it means is that if we reach a state of affairs when it is not necessary for such a person to be imprisoned, we make an application to the magistrate. I cannot see where the difficulty lies in putting into effect the machinery to release that man. Something was said about warrants being chased all over the country. We do that today and there is no difficulty.
The only other reason put forward was that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), namely, that the Joint Under-Secretary said, in effect, "Yes, it is a good thing. I see that there are arguments in its favour, but we must be careful about interfering with the machinery of the court. There is so much to be done." If there is so much to be done, let us do a little now.

Mr. Victor Yates: I am disappointed that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not been able to meet us in this matter. In Committee, I thought the Minister was impressed with the importance of trying to find a means of taking from prison a number of people who would never have been there had this Measure been in operation. I know that the Home Secretary has power to discharge——

Mr. Ede: If he is prepared to recommend the exercise of the Prerogative.

Mr. Yates: Yes, that is what I meant. The Home Secretary has the power.
I would have thought that if the Minister felt there were legal difficulties, he could have regarded this as a special case. I do not think that the question of civil fines could be introduced here, because this is a Bill which applies specifically to one kind of case. I am not a legal expert, and, therefore, I find difficulty in arguing this point, but I would have thought that there was a case for endeavouring to take action in this way.
The basis of the Bill is important. We are recommending that there is something wrong in our law which compels large numbers of people to be committed to prison. Many of us support this Bill because we realise that that is not the right method of dealing with such people. I hope the Minister will try again to meet the views of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, because many strong views have been expressed from time to time about the Bill. In my view, the Government are morally bound to consider taking some action to try to release these people, provided that they can be brought within the scope of the law as it is to be amended.
Even if the Minister cannot accept the wording of this proposed Clause, I hope that he will consider this point again. In Committee, I thought that he was impressed by the powerful arguments put forward——

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Very much impressed.

Mr. Yates: Yes, and he seemed to appreciate how strongly we felt about those large numbers of people in prison.
I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider the matter and ascertain whether there is some legal method by which, within present legislation, the Home Secretary can recommend the release of imprisoned men on the ground that we have suggested.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, but I should like to join hon. Members opposite in urging my hon. and learned Friend to look at this matter again. I say that with diffidence, because usually I would not support most of the arguments used by hon. Members opposite. However, on this occasion I submit to my hon. and learned Friend that there should be a good case for putting into the Measure some power to discharge committal orders.
I appreciate what my hon. and learned Friend may say about piecemeal legislation and about the time approaching for the introduction of a new Measure to extend and develop the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts, but, having regard to this Bill, I ask my hon. and learned Friend to say that this is a matter which he could reconsider and that he would be entitled to agree to the spirit behind the proposed Clause.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I rise not to curtail the discussion, but to bring the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary back to the arguments adduced in Committee. We complained then that although we had tried to table Amendments based on the logic of the Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman declined to discuss the principle and confined himself to discussing machinery. The hon. and learned Gentleman argued that it would create anomalies in relation to other Measures if he conceded our point; but


he is creating a very great anomaly within the Bill itself.
The Bill attempts to do two things. It seeks to ensure that women obtain the payments to which they are entitled under orders. It also seeks to ensure that men are kept out of prison. So long as the hon. and learned Gentleman insists upon leaving the Bill as it is now, there is no opportunity for persons who already have a committal order against them to comply with the principles of the Bill. The one thing to ensure that they cannot comply is their inability to work, and the best way to ensure that they are not able to work is to keep them in prison.
My hon. Friends are urging that the Government should be consistent. We have the greatest sympathy with the idea of keeping men out of prison in debt cases. Some of us may not favour all the provisions in the Bill, including those in respect of attachment orders, but we make sacrifices in the general interest.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said he hoped that certain courts would now pass suspended orders. That would meet the situation in some degree. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot guarantee that from now on courts will make suspended orders. At the very moment that the House is deciding upon a completely new principle, the hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to enshrine all the worst features of the old principle. The hon. and learned Gentleman avoids arguing the issue itself and seeks some shelter behind the argument that we should be inconsistent in doing what we propose, because if he once begins to argue the principle he concedes either that the Bill is wrong or that this aspect of it cannot possibly be consistent with the other parts of it.
I note the speech of the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), who seeks that it cannot possibly be consistent to argue that we should now take a completely new principle for England and Wales—the attachment of earnings—to keep men out of prison if we do not give those already committed or in process of committal an opportunity to benefit from the new conception.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will seek to convince the House that there is in some way a rooted objection to the principles of what we are putting forward, that they are anti-social

and do not meet the obligations which the Government must accept, or else not only accept the principle that we have adumbrated but tell the House that, irrespective of the point about lack of consistency with other types of debt dealt with under other legislation, he will ensure that when the Bill reaches another place he will cause to be inserted an Amendment to cover the point that we have raised.
We are extremely concerned about this aspect of the Bill. There are aspects of it upon which some of my hon. Friends may not agree, but on this aspect we are extremely concerned that the Government should take some action. Time and time again the hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he would like to do it, but he has refused to tell us why he does not do it. I feel that the House cannot possibly be satisfied to leave the Bill as it is. We hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will say why he will not accept our proposal or that he will ensure that when the Bill reaches another place appropriate words are inserted.

Mr. David Jones: On Second Reading, the Home Secretary was at great pains to impress upon the House that one of the reasons for bringing forward the Bill at this time was to reduce the prison population. He declared, as did the hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee, that there are 5,000 committals a year. If the Home Secretary and the Joint Under-Secretary are anxious to reduce the prison population, our Clause provides a way to do it.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has argued that this would be a departure into a new principle; but the whole Bill is a departure into a new principle. We are seeking to deal with a certain kind of debt in a new way in England and Wales. That being the case, ought we not to start off the new principle under the best possible circumstances? Surely the best circumstances would be to give magistrates' courts power to do what is proposed in our Clause, to give the people concerned a chance which they have never previously had, that of having an attachment of income order made against them. If the Home Secretary and the Joint Under-Secretary are anxious to give the Bill a real start, surely one of the best ways would be to make it possible for people now in prison to be


released and have an attachment of income order made against them and for current committal orders to be reversed.
I understand that a secondary principle under the Bill is that women who are parted from their husbands shall be relieved from the distress which is caused to them in being unable to obtain money from their husbands for their maintenance. It would be far better for these women to obtain the income under an attachment order than to know that their husbands were in prison.
I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman could find a way to do what we seek. He told us in Committee that he would look at the matter again, and I believe that he has done so. However, is he now telling us that the Department is so barren of ideas in spite of all its resources that it cannot find a means of doing it?

Mr. Renton: With great respect, I think that hon. Members are somewhat magnifying the problem. I will, first, consider the proportion of the problem and the nature of the committals which, it is suggested, magistrates' courts should have permission to discharge. I quite concede that there are 5,000 committals every year for failure to pay maintenance orders. The periods vary and the maximum is three months, imposed by magistrates' courts and six weeks by the High Court or county court.
The Amendment can be important only in so far as there are some men in prison at the time the Bill comes into operation—and it will be only a comparatively small number. If that is not so, then, as I feared and suspected, the operation of the new Clause would be very wide and would cut across a rule that magistrates' courts have never had the freedom, that the High Court has had, of discharging their own committal orders. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) mentioned in an interruption, magistrates' court defaulters can be discharged only by the Secretary of State.
We should be changing that rule for a particular purpose. At present, it is the fact that a defaulter can be released only on the instructions of the Secretary of State and it is the practice of the Secretary of State to give those instructions when, for example, a woman wants to

forgive the husband who has been committed for failing to make the maintenance payments to her.

Mr. Ede: I never had that excuse given to me.

Mr. Renton: That is a very telling intervention.
I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that they will be giving this general power to magistrates' courts, a power which they have never had before, for good or bad reasons, to discharge their own committal orders for maintenance order purposes and it will still leave unresolved the question of whether they should have that power when they have committed people for civil debts.
The Bill has a limited purpose. As I have said before, and may have to say several times again—and I expect that I shall have to do so and I will not stop doing so—the Bill takes the existing magistrates' court and High Court procedures as it finds them and superimposes upon them the new remedy of the attachment of earnings and it also makes the enforcement procedures of the High Court and magistrates' courts reciprocally enforceable after registration.
To that extent, I agree, the Bill does impinge on existing procedures. Hon. Members, on this and various other points, are inviting me to be highly selective about the extent to which we should change the various procedures of the High Court and magistrates' courts. For an especially strong and overwhelming reason, and especially for a very strong practical reason, such as a need to ensure the effectiveness of the Bill, I should be prepared to go with them in tinkering about with those procedures in that way, but here the practical problem does not arise, because the courts have known for a long time that the Bill is likely to be passed.
There will be an interval between the Royal Assent and the coming into operation of the Bill and it is almost inconceivable that a court will commit to prison a man against whom there could be a suspended committal order, instead of a committal order, when he is earning good money and when it is known that if he does not pay, in the course of a not very long time, an attachment of earnings order can be made against him under the Bill.
7.45 p.m.
Magistrates' courts are not entirely blind to what happens in the House. As I said earlier—and meant it quite sincerely and mean it sincerely now—I would willingly try to meet hon. Members on this point if I did not think that it would not be right to alter the existing procedure in magistrates' courts in that way. I have somewhat summarised my arguments in my reply and I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) will forgive me if I do not give a dissertation on the procedures which he invited me to give. We went into this matter fairly thoroughly in Committee and I am sorry that I cannot meet the Opposition on this issue.

Mr. Royle: There are precedents for magistrates' courts having power of revision. For instance, there is the suspension of driving licences in motoring offences. If the magistrates decide on a suspension of a man's driving licence the defendant, after a time, can return and ask for that decision to be revised; and very often the magistrates do revise it. I suggest that that is a vastly more important matter than that which we are now discussing.

Mr. Renton: That is right off the point.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I am still in some doubt about the real reasons for the hon. and learned Gentleman's opposition to the new Clause and I cannot believe that the real reasons have been adduced. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that we were asking for a highly selective Amendment of the powers of magistrates' courts; but, of course, this is a highly selective Bill. We cannot possibly go beyond the powers of magistrates' courts in respect of maintenance orders, and the fact that the Government have not had time to make other amendments to the powers of magistrates' courts seems no reason why we should not bring them into line with the current trend of opinion in the House on the matter which we are now considering.
He is right in saying that the purpose of the Bill is not to assimilate the procedures of the High Court and county courts and magistrates' courts. The purposes are to ensure compliance with maintenance orders and to keep men out

of prison. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) reminded us, the Home Secretary told us over and over again on Second Reading that the real purpose of the Bill was to keep men out of prison. As I understand the present position, the High Court and the county courts can discharge any orders which they make, while a magistrates' court, on the other hand, cannot discharge a committal order until the man in question has served a period of imprisonment, or has discharged the amount which was owing under the maintenance order.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that magistrates' courts have never had any other power. That is true, but magistrates' courts have never had power to attach a man's income. When we are making radical changes in the powers of magistrates' courts to ensure compliance with maintenance orders and other orders of that kind, the hon. and learned Gentleman is being a little obstinate in refusing to go as far as we want him to go.
If we really want to keep men out of prison, let us consider the matter in this way: if these men were not in prison they might be earning good wages, which could be attached, to the benefit of their wives. So long as they are in prison the wives receive no benefit, and the maintenance orders are not being complied with. The wives will get nothing at all until the period of imprisonment has been completed. That seems to be a wholly absurd situation.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that we were magnifying the figures, but he will remember that in Committee he said that he had been very much impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates). On that occasion my hon. Friend gave statistics concerning the number of committals every year. He said:
The last figures submitted by the Prison Commissioners show that in the last yearly period…2,969 persons were in prison…
Out of 5,000 committals a year, rather fewer than 3,000 persons go to prison for these offences. It is difficult to magnify the difficulties caused by those 3,000 men being in prison, when many of them could be working, earning good wages and complying with the maintenance orders applying to them.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood also said:
If…we are proposing legislation to avoid putting people in prison, why can we not look at the problem of those already there, who, in my judgment, would not be there if a better method existed?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 18th February, 1958; c. 338.]
In spite of a number of misgivings, my hon. Friends have decided to adopt a new method by which the sending of large numbers of people to prison will be avoided. We are asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to be more accommodating and to do something about those men in prison, so that they can be released to earn wages and comply with the maintenance orders against them.

Mr. Renton: Has the hon. Member appreciated that, in the case of a man who is in prison, his arrears will be wiped out when he has served his sentence, and that there will be no arrears upon which to base an attachment of earnings order? There is the further point that if

we include the proposal in the Bill it will operate in cases of men already in prison at the time of its coming into force, and to that minor extent it will make the Bill retrospective in its effect upon earlier decisions made by magistrates.

Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has on the Order Paper an Amendment dealing with the hon. and learned Member's first point which, if accepted, will remove the difficulty.
As for the other point, we are not greatly impressed. If the House decides to accept the proposed new Clause the hon. and learned Member will have an opportunity of making any drafting or other Amendments when the Bill goes to another place. In those circumstances, we must press the matter to a Division.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 158. Noes 155.

Division No. 67.]
AYES
[7.52 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Grey, C. F.
Mellish, R. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moody, A. S.


Balfour, A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Benson, Sir George
Hastings, S,
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Hayman, F. H.
Mort, D. L.


Blyton, W. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Moss, R.


Boardman, H.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Moyle, A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Holman, P.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Holt, A. F.
Oram, A. E.


Boyd, T. C.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, M.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hunter, A. E.
Owen, W. J.


Burke, W. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Chapman, W. D.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Parker, J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Paton, John


Clunie, J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Peart, T. F.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pentland, N.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Popplewell, E.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, R. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Prise, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Probert, A. R.


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montogomery)
King, Dr. H. M.
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lawson, G. M.
Randall, H. E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Redhead, E. C.


Deer, G.
Lipton, Marcus
Reeves, J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Logan, D. G.
Reid, William


Diamond, John
MacColl, J. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dodds, N.N.
MacDermot, Niall
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McInnes, J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ross, William


Fletcher, Eric
McLeavy, Frank
Royle, C.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Short, E. W.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Silverman Sydney (Nelson)


Gooch, E. G.
Mason, Roy
Simmons C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mayhew, C. P.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)




Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Usborne, H. C.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Sorensen, R. W.
Viant, S. P.
 Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wade, D. W.
 Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Steele, T.
Watkins, T. E.
 Winterbottom, Richard


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Weitzman, D.
Woodburn Rt. Hon. A.


Stones, W. (Consett)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woof, R. E.


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Yates, V. (Lady Wood)


Sylvester, G. O.
West, D. G.
Zilliacus, K.


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wheeldon, W. E.
 


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mathew, R.


Aitken, W. T.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mawby, R. L.


Alport, C. J. M.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Arbuthnot, John
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Atkins, H. E.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hay, John
Oakshott, H. D.


Barter, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, R. G.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Partridge, E.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj, W. W.
Peel, W. J.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Biggs-Davison, J, A.
Hornby, R. P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bingham, R. M.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M, P.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bishop, F. P.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pitman, I. J.


Bryan, P.
Hurd, A. R.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Po[...]t, H. P.


Campbell, Sir David
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Powell, J. Enoch


Carr, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Channon, Sir Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Profumo, J. D.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ramsden, J. E.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Peter


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Redmayne, M.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kaberry, D.
Ronton, D. L. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Keegan, D.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Dance, J. C. G.
Kirk, P. M.
Roper, Sir Harold


Deedes, W. F.
Leavey, J. A.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. A. E. H.
Sharpies, R. C.


Drayson, G. B.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Storey, S.


Duncan, Sir James
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Teeling, W.


Elliot, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McAdden, S. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Finlay, Graeme
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Vane, W. M. F.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McKibbin, Alan
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gammans, Lady
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Webbe, Sir H.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Glover, D.
Maddan, Martin
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Woollam, John Victor


Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)



Graham, Sir Fergus
Markham, Major Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Mr. Brooman-White and


Green, A.

Mr. Hughes-Young.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This is a new situation which has arisen in the House. For the first time since the last General Election the Government have been defeated on a vote of the House and, of course, on a vote on which the Government Whips were imposed. It

seems to me that it is perfectly clear now that the House——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it would be more convenient if, before he moves any Motion which he may be proposing to


move, I put the Question, That the Clause be added to the Bill. The Question is——

Mr. Frederick Lee: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I move——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I must put the Question.

Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 153.

Division No. 68.]
AYES
[8.6 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hunter, A. E.
Proctor, W. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Randall, H. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Redhead, E, C.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reeves, J.


Balfour, A.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Price, S.)
Reid, William


Benson, Sir George
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blackburn, F.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blyton, W. R.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boardman, H.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, William


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Royle, C.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Short, E. W.


Boyd, T. C.
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Burke, W. A.
Lawson, G, M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Callaghan, L. J.
Logan, D. G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Champion, A. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Chapman, W. D.
MacDermot, Niall
Sorensen, R. W.


Chelwynd, G. R.
McGhee, H. G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Clunie, J.
McInnes, J.
Steele, T.


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
McLeavy, Frank
Stones, W. (Consett)


Cove, W. G.
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sylvester, G. O.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mason, Roy
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Deer, G.
Mikardo, Ian
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mitchison, G. R.
Usborne, H. C.


Diamond, John
Moody, A. S.
Viant, S. P.


Dodds, N. N.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wade, D. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Watkins, T. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mort, D. L.
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Moss, R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fletcher, Eric
Moyle, A.



Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Oram, A. E.
West, D. G.


Gibson, C. W.
Orbach, M.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Gooch, E. G.
Oswald, T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Greenwood, Anthony
Owen, W. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Grey, C. F.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Hastings, S.
Parker, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hayman, F. H.
Paton, John
Woof, R. E. 


Harbison, Miss M.
Peart, T. F.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Pentland, N.
Zilliacus, K.


Holman, P.
Popplewell, E.



Holt, A. F.
Prentice, R. E.



Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, A. R.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bishop, F. P.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Aitken, W. T.
Brooman-White, R, C.
Currie, G. B. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bryan, P.
Dance, J. C. G.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Deedes, W. F.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Campbell, Sir David
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Carr, Robert
du Cann, E. D. L.


Arbuthnot, John
Channon, Sir Henry
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Baldwin, A, E.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Duncan, Sir James


Barter, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Eden, J, B. (Bournemouth, West)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Errington, Sir Eric


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Finlay, Graeme


Bingham, R. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.




Gammans, Lady
Keegan, D.
Pitman, I. J.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pitt, Miss E. M.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Kirk, P. M.
Pot, H. P.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Leavey, J. A.
Powell, J. Enoch


Glover, D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Gower, H. R.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Profumo, J. D.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Ramsden, J. E.


Green, A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rawlinson, Peter


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Redmayne, M.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McAdden, S. J.
Renton, D. L. M.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Ridsdale, J. E.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
McKibbin, Alan
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Hay, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Sharples, R. C.


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maddan, Martin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Storey, S.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hornby, R. P.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Teeling, W.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Mathew, R.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Mawby, R. L.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hurd, A. R.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Neave, Airey
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Vane, W. M. F.


Iremonger, T. L.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Oakshott, H. D.
Webbe, Sir H.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Page, R. G.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Partridge, E.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Johnson, Erie (Blackley)
Peel, W. J.
Woollam, John Victor


Joseph, Sir Keith
Peyton, J. W. W.



Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Pike, Miss Mervyn
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kaberry, D.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Mr. Edward Wakefield and




Mr. Hughes-Young.

The numbers being equal—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In those circumstances, it is my duty to give a casting vote "No" so as to preserve the status quo.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: In view of the fact that the Government have been defeated once and saved only by your casting vote, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on the second occasion, would it now be in order, and, if so, would you permit me, to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
I should like to know whether the Government agree to the Motion. In view of their parlous position they may prefer to adjourn the debate in order to try to collect some supporters for their Bill. Alternatively, if they prefer to abandon the Bill altogether we shall understand the decision. There is one other course. I do not know whether the Patronage Secretary can offer us any

enlightenment upon it. The third course open to the Government is to resign altogether.

8.16 p.m.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): Mr. Deputy-Speaker——

Hon. Members: Where is the Prime Minister?

Mr. V. Yates: Where is the Home Secretary?

Mr. Herbert Morrison: On a point of order. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that the Government have been defeated. On the second Division the voting was equal, and the Chair, in accordance with tradition, gave a vote to maintain the status quo. As the Government have been defeated, is it good enough for the Minister of Labour to intervene?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Morrison: May I ask whether—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in the circumstances, either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House should not be sent for?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Iain Macleod: What I intended to do, out of courtesy to the House and because I think I am the senior Minister present on the Treasury Bench—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—was to reply to the points made by the Leader of the Opposition. I need not waste any time on his third choice; we reject it, of course. The position about the consideration of the Bill now before the House is that, after a fairly close-run race, the status quo is preserved. In that case, we suggest to the House that we continue with the consideration. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It will be for the House to decide. We are on a Motion, and I am putting the point of view of the Government. We wish to continue with the consideration of the Bill, and therefore we would oppose the Motion that the Leader of the Opposition has moved.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: We are on a Motion. The reply of the Minister of Labour to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is in no way adequate. The truth is that the Government have been defeated, and the very least the Minister of Labour could have promised was that a statement would be made by the Prime Minister tomorrow about the Government's intentions and the future of the Bill. It is not in accordance with the traditions of the House of Commons that a defeat of the Government should be treated in this light manner. In any case, the Minister of Labour is not a particular authority on the Bill.
We have in charge a Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. [Interruption.] It is no good Government supporters becoming troublesome because they have been defeated. We have a Joint Under-Secretary who is not particularly bright or competent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am not withdrawing. It is true. I used to watch him when he was up there on the back benches; how he ever got down on to the Front Bench I do not know—[An HON. MEMBER: "How did the right hon. Member get up there?"] That is a perfectly fair comeback and I can enjoy the joke as well as other people. It is not good enough for this matter to be dealt with

by the Minister of Labour. I ask the Chief Whip to ask the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House to come down here and deal with a situation which, from the point of view of the Government and the point of view of the House, is a grave one and demands the presence of a responsible, not an irresponsible, Minister.

8.21 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon. South) rose——

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Would you not direct, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Chief Whip be given a glass of water?

Major W. Hicks Beach: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, could not the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) be given a glass of milk?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is the hon. and gallant Member going to give me?

Major Hicks Beach: Whisky, or whatever the hon. Member drinks.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As one of the hon. Members who was not present in the House when these proceedings started, I feel as well qualified as any hon. Member opposite to discuss the matter. In the last Division the two sides of the House tied with 153 votes each. That being so. it is perfectly plain that a very large number of Opposition hon. Members were also absent. I think there was a fall of no less than 32 votes between the two Divisions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At all events, there was certainly a fall. It is plain that hon. Members opposite were just as surprised as anyone at the outcome of the Division.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Lack of morale on the Government side.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Hon. Members are concerned with and are discussing other very important matters. Not unnaturally, some of them may have been elsewhere considering more important measures than this Bill. If I may say so, I think the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was mistaken in criticising the Minister of Labour for replying to the Leader of


the Opposition because, when I look at the Bill, I find that the name of my right hon. Friend is the second name on the back of the Bill. It seems that there could be no more suitable right hon. Member to reply than my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about the Motion?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asks, "What about the Motion?" The Motion, I believe, is known as a dilatory Motion. We are not now discussing the Bill, but whether or not we should continue discussion of the Bill. On such a question I do not think it lies well in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to suggest that I am delaying proceedings. It seemed perfectly obvious that when the Leader of the Opposition moved this Motion it was his intention to delay proceedings, so, for once in a way, I am, so to speak, supporting the purpose which the right hon. Member seems to have started.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As the hon. Member has just stated that his purpose in making his speech is to delay the proceedings of the House, he must definitely be out of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Member say anything out of order.

Mr. Orbach: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member stated it quite clearly in the last minute before he sat down.

Major Hicks Beach: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for an hon. Member to whom you have definitely given a Ruling to rise and criticise your Ruling?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not understand that the hon. Member did criticise my Ruling. I understood he was giving me some information. I do not think the hon. Member was out of order.

Mr. Dudley Williams (Exeter): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am a little obscure—[Laughter.] If I may say so, I thought that remark would get a good laugh

from the other side of the House, but I am not quite clear in my mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] As I was saying——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot discuss the hon. Member's mind. Has he got a point of order?

Mr. Williams: I have a point of order all right, and I am just coming to it. I was saying that I am not quite clear in my mind what is now to happen in view of the fact that there has been a draw. Do we have another Division?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I was not suggesting that my motive was in any way to delay proceedings. The point which I was making was that it is very difficult to speak on a dilatory Motion without saying something about being dilatory. If I am supporting the Leader of the Opposition in being dilatory, it is unlikely that I shall support him on any other occasion.
On the merits of the Motion, as far as there are any, it is fair to point out that the Government have replied through the obvious Minister who has supported the Bill. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South referred to the defeat of the Government. As a rule, when we have a victory—and I imagine that he suggests that the Opposition have had a victory—there is something to show for it, but on this occasion there is absolutely nothing to show for it. The result of what has occurred is precisely what the Government intended. If the result of everything which the right hon. Gentleman did was precisely as he intended, I should have even greater respect for him than I have at present.
This is in no conceivable sense of the word a Government defeat. On the contrary, it shows how accurately the Government are able to calculate these matters. We are confronted with a situation in which the Opposition, having been foiled in an attempt to inflict a defeat on the Government, are attempting to hold up a Measure which I believe has their general approval. I will not detain the House any longer, but I feel sure that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to give their attention to this important Motion.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I feel that in this situation all of us should have some regard for the propriety of decent behaviour in the House. It seems to me intolerable that the Government have not only suffered a most humiliating defeat but are now attempting to thwart the obvious and recognised course of procedure which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has proposed, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned." Such an adjournment would enable us to have an authoritative statement from the Treasury Bench about the Government's intentions.
If we had an assurance from the Chief Whip that either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House is on his way here—and if that is the case, then either he or the Minister of Labour should say so—there might be some purpose in our continuing our discussion until we know what are the Prime Minister's intentions, but it is not treating the House with respect for the Government, having suffered this humiliating defeat, to get the Minister of Labour to invite the House to continue discussion of the Bill without hon. Members knowing what the Government's intentions are.
I feel some sympathy with the Minister of Labour, because obviously he does not know what the Government's intentions are, and consequently he cannot announce them. He is in a humiliating position because he cannot tell us whether the Government will accept this defeat and respect the wishes of the House or whether they will try to change the decision. It is intolerable that we should be asked to continue with the Bill not knowing whether the Government will respect the wishes of the House or will resign or what other course they will take. It does not make sense that, having reached a decision by a majority to add a new Clause to the Bill, the House should be invited to give further discussion to the Bill before we know the Government's intentions.
There are several precedents for this. The Government have various alternatives open to them. They are in the undignified position of not only having been humiliated in the Division Lobbies but of having no responsible spokesman on the Treasury Bench who can tell us

what is the Cabinet's decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I apologise. I did not see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General was here. If the position is that the learned Attorney-General is now to give the House the benefit of his advice and tell us what the Government propose to do, I am sure that we shall all welcome it, though do not say that we shall accept what he says. In view of the fact that the Attorney-General, on a number of occasions, has differed from his colleagues on important matters, we should not necessarily accept his opinion as being any guide as to the Government's intention.
I am quite sure that the traditions of this House are such that, when there has been a Government defeat on an important Bill, in these circumstances it is the duty of either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House to make a statement and to tell us what the Government's intentions are. As both those right hon. Gentlemen are absent, it is the duty of the Chief Whip or the Minister of Labour or the Attorney-General to tell us whether there is some good reason for the absence of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, whether their absence is temporary and likely to be of long duration, when they are expected back, and how long the House is to be asked to wait before being informed what the Government intend to do.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Rawlinson: I was very moved when listening to the tones of indignation of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) until I noticed that he had to have a copy of the Bill passed to him in order that he should realise which Bill it was that we had previously been discussing.
Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who moved this Motion, I should have thought that every hon. Member would have been delighted now and again to find that there seemed to have been some slight electoral reverse and some doubt about who had won which Division on some occasions when we go through the Lobbies. I should have thought that there is no reason to be alarmed, and indeed I am surprised to hear that any hon. Member is upset or disturbed because, in fact, something untoward has


happened in the voting arrangements which are made by hon. Members on either side. It seems to me that this Bill, which we are now asked not to discuss any further this evening, is a Measure which had the general support of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) spoke in favour of this new Clause and in favour of the point of view of this side of the House, and that the Government were defeated? The hon. Gentleman is now a renegade.

Mr. Rawlinson: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) must realise that I, unlike hon. Members opposite, am moved by oratory, and though I was moved by the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, and I did in terms of due modesty try to persuade my hon. and learned Friend to accept the new Clause, the explanation which he offered thoroughly satisfied me. Therefore, I went into the appropriate Lobby. I can only suggest that it would be a great misfortune if this Motion, which has been put forward so seriously by the Leader of the Opposition, were carried, and I would therefore respectfully submit that we should go on with the discussion of the Bill.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Unlike all the previous speakers on this Motion, I have been present throughout the whole of the proceedings and, for the first time since I have been in this House, when the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), who, by a freak of the constitution is supposed to represent me, was speaking, I found him for once actually representing my views. If oratory is what he calls what he heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State, I am bound to say that his own education was seriously neglected.
The new Clause was discussed quite calmly by a number of hon. Members on this side. We had the support of the hon. Member for Epsom who spoke—with a conviction that I have no doubt many of the people he has defended would have regarded as being even more powerful if it had been displayed in the courts—in favour of what we had said. The hon. and learned Gentleman then made three or four replies, as he is entitled

to on the Report stage of a Bill. On each occasion, the House became more hostile to him.
Then we proceeded to a Division. The declaration of the result of the Division was held up for at least three minutes while the Government Whips fetched out of the Lobby the cards on which the votes are recorded, and everybody who was here saw the two Whips and the two Clerks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—totting up the votes, and counting them individually.
It is quite clear that the Chief Whip was caught napping——

Mr. John Paton: He is still napping.

Mr. Ede: No, I think that he is playing pontoon now.
With some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have been in the House on previous occasions when Governments have been defeated. When the Leader of the Opposition has moved a Motion such as that moved tonight, I have never known it to be resisted, except on one occasion when, in similar circumstances, the Chief Whip was caught napping by my friend the late Miss Ellen Wilkinson, on a Motion to secure equal pay—or rather, on a Motion to go into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates.
This was not a decision that was rushed by the Opposition. Nobody can say that this was a snap vote. We had enough people here to beat the Government—that is all there is in it. Where the Government supporters were when the Division was taken is not for me to say, although I can guess where some of them were——

Mr. George Chetwynd: I bet they are not there now.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) can be assured of this; that in spite of any promise that may have been given, there will be a Supplementary Estimate for the services to the House to pay for the telephone calls made since the Government defeat was announced. Hon. Members are coming in from the east and from the west—mainly from the west. They are coming in from the north and the south, and anywhere else where it is suspected they may be—in the heavens above—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or else, and


more likely, in a place under the earth, to make quite sure that, when this Motion is put, if it is, and no responsible Member of the Government has turned up in the meantime, it will be defeated. I hope that either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House will be here, because I cannot think that either of them, with prewar experience of the House and their knowledge of its traditions and customs, will do other than accept the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend.
Further, let the Government take warning from what has happened. It is well known that they find some reluctance on the part of their honourable supporters in going into the Lobby in their support on certain occasions. I cannot imagine why they should have had any doubt on this occasion for, after all, this is a Bill which, so far as I know, is one of the apples of the eye of the Home Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] The Under-Secretary did his best. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is here now. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Start all over again."] No, I shall not break the rule about tedious repetition; all repetition is tedious.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ede: We have had enough of it from the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). We are sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's slumbers, or his recreation, should have been disturbed, but really he has been very badly let down by his Under-Secretary of State this evening on a quite simple new Clause which was supported by voice by several Members from this side of the House and by his hon. Friend the Member for Epsom on his own side of the House.

Mr. C. Pannell: He did not vote for it.

Mr. Ede: No, but his speech was far more powerful than anything he could have done by vote. It was the one thing which convinced me that I was right.
After the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State had made three or four efforts to reply to the case which was put up, the House proceeded to a Division. When the Tellers for the "Ayes" came to the Table, that is to

say, those in favour of the new Clause[Laughter.]—I should not have thought that there was anything very funny in that—they came to the Table just a few seconds ahead of the Tellers for the "Noes."
When the four Tellers got together, we saw something which I do not think has ever occurred in the history of the House before. The four Tellers had a little conversation and then the two Government Tellers went and checked the votes which had been recorded in the "Noes" Lobby. We saw it being done immediately behind the Chair.
As one of my hon. Friends says, the Government Chief Whip was there too. After all, he wanted to be quite sure that all the votes which could be got were there. We saw them counting them one by one, applying a finger to each one, to see whether it was really a mark or not, I suppose. In the end, the Government were declared defeated by a majority of three. Mr. Deputy-Speaker then put the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill." On that Question, there was a further Division and the numbers were equal. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in accordance with tradition, then gave his vote in favour of maintaining the status quo and said that the Clause would not be added to the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition then moved, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned." I am sure that the Leader of the House will be surprised to learn that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour indicated that that Motion should be resisted. There was no snap Division. No one, not even the Chief Whip in the highest flight of his imagination, could urge that. After all, the Chief Whip had plenty of people about, although there were not enough to keep the debate on the new Clause going while he made the telephone bells ring.
I suggest to the Leader of the House that it is in accordance with the tradition of the House, when such an event has occurred, that the Motion, "That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned," should be accepted by the Government. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman has to consider what he will do as a result of the Divisions tonight he will feel that the arguments put forward were so


cogent that he will ensure that the first vote of the House tonight is given its effect when the Bill is considered in another place.
I think that if he proposes to leave the fate of the rest of the Bill in the hands of the Joint Under-Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman should have conversation with his hon. and learned Friend about the way in which a response should be made to the evident feeling of the House as it has been expressed on both sides. I make that appeal to the right hon. Gentleman with confidence. There was a time when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of which he was the head. No more happy time have I ever had in Parliament than when I was working with the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] It is only fair that I should say that while I am making this appeal. Very few of the people who are interrupting were present during that period.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to observe the ordinary tradition of the House and to say that further consideration of the Bill should not be proceeded with this evening, so that he will have time in which to learn what happened and what was said. I am sure, if we then come back to the consideration of the Bill, we shall be able to carry on in a way that will not be to the detriment either of the Bill or of the traditions of the House.

8.54 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston: The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is a very old Member of this House. If I may say so, he is a House of Commons man. I am, therefore, rather sad that he should lay down what he has done as a tradition of this House. I will tell him why. I think that the public are inclined to view the House today as merely a rubber stamp for what is decided by the Whips or by the Government. That being so, I believe that in the public estimation the debates in this House are going down all the time and from a House of Commons point of view that is a had and, in some ways, a distressing thing.
I admit freely that I have not been here because I have been otherwise engaged in this building. What we have been discussing, however, is a Bill which, although important to a certain number of people, cannot be described as a major

Government Measure, and it is being discussed on the Report stage. According to the right hon. Gentleman the House of Commons has sunk so low that if it fails to act as a rubber stamp, and the Government are thereby defeated on a new Clause during the Report stage of a comparatively unimportant Bill, it is a great occasion.
That is a denigration of the House of Commons which distresses me, namely, that the House of Commons has reached the stage where the Government cannot be defeated on a comparatively minor matter without the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House being expected to come here, and the heavens almost falling down. Noting this spectacle tonight the public can only be reinforced in their opinion that debates, here, even upon the Report stage of a comparatively minor Bill, mean nothing in this House of Commons, and, as a House of Commons man, it leaves me rather sad.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. V. Yates: I am astonished that the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston), who could not be present during our discussion, should have referred to the Clause under consideration as being a minor matter. The Home Secretary knows how deeply people were feeling about the Bill, which has been very controversial. The Clause under consideration asked the Home Secretary to agree to release from prison a large number of prisoners who would not have been there had this Bill been on the Statute Book.
This is a vital matter, and to my complete surprise the Home Secretary was not present during the proceedings. For that reason, when the Question for the Second Reading of the Clause was proposed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I asked the Joint Under-Secretary whether the Home Secretary could not be asked to exercise his power to agree to the release of those prisoners. I submit to the House that when we are discussing a vital matter——

Mr. Stephen McAdden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for us now to discuss something which, I understand, according to the argument of the Opposition, has already been settled by a vote?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is in order to make references to the Clause, which was the subject out of which this debate arose.

Mr. Yates: I am pointing out the vital principle of the Bill, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We had been discussing a Clause on which the Government were defeated, and the Home Secretary was not present. It is untenable that we should be discussing so important a proposal without the Home Secretary being here.
The hon. Member for Westbury said that this was a minor matter, that there was nothing major about it. It is a matter of whether or not we should release from prison men who would not be in prison if——

Sir R. Grimston: I said that it was a matter of considerable importance to a number of people, but that it was not a major Government Bill.

Mr. Yates: That was not the hon. Gentleman's slant as I understood it. However, let us look at it from that point of view.
What is a major Government Measure? When all is said and done, at present we have about 3,000 men in prison and we are trying, with the aid of the provisions of the Bill, to have them released from prison and to prevent other persons being sent to prison. Whether or not we do justice to those who have been sent to prison and now find this legislation being passed, is not a minor matter.
The Home Secretary knows very well that it has not been easy to get the House to accept the Bill. All credit is due to the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), who on Report exercised his right to suggest that the Government might consider the Opposition's proposal. The hon. Gentleman spoke after I did, and I should like to think that I helped to persuade him.
I am seeking to put a case to the Government Front Bench, but the Minister of Labour and National Service is very busy talking to the Home Secretary. The Minister of Labour knows nothing about this matter and was unable to tell the House whether the Government would reconsider it in the light of the opinion which has been expressed by the House. Why should not the Home Secretary reconsider it?
The House should adjourn to enable the Government to decide what to do about the Opposition's Clause. The proceedings on the Bill should not be

continued until the Government have had a chance to consider the matter. It is fantastic that we should continue to discuss the Bill now, after what has happened. In view of the importance and urgency of the matter and its human aspects, I ask the Home Secretary to agree to an adjournment and to reconsider the matter so that the House can later deal with it in a new atmosphere.

9.4 p.m.

Sir Peter Macdonald: I can well understand the Opposition's elation at finding themselves in a majority in a Division—a snap Division. [Interruption.] In spite of what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said——

Mr. McAdden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members opposite to say, "That is a lie"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I did not hear an hon. Member say that, but it would not be in order.

Mr. McAdden: Perhaps hon. Members opposite will repeat it.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) is guilty of a gross inaccuracy. He cannot in any way substantiate his statement that it was a snap Division. We had a long debate before the Division was taken, but the hon. Gentleman was not present.

Mr. McAdden: On a point of order. May we have an answer to the point of order put by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), or was it not a point of order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) was explaining the situation.

Mr. McAdden: Not on a point of order.

Sir P. Macdonald: I can well understand the elation of hon. Members opposite that, for the first time since 1951, or before that, the Opposition have achieved what we achieved on a number of occasions—a defeat of the Government on a minor issue.
I was about to deal with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who said that this was not a snap Division. It had all the semblance of being one, even if was not one. I have been in the House all day, from early morning, and I have listened to the debate and discussed the Bill with hon. Members opposite and I have asked them whether it was a controversial Measure. There was nothing controversial in any of the Clauses. It was true that a new Clause was introduced——

Mr. V. Yates: The hon. Gentleman has said that he was present during all the debate. In that case, I wonder why he asked me what I said when I spoke.

Sir P. Macdonald: I can never follow the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates).

Mr. Yates: The hon. Member must know that he was not present during the discussion. Why does he not say so?

Sir P. Macdonald: I was present when the hon. Member spoke, but, as usual, I could not understand what he was talking about.
Quite seriously, I can well understand the elation of hon. Members opposite in having defeated the Government on a Division—I will withdraw the expression snap Division"—which had all the semblance of being a snap Division. On second thoughts, I wonder whether it was a snap Division, because hon. Members Opposite could muster only half their party so that it was not a very successful snap Division. I concede that we have been defeated and that our Whips may have been caught napping.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who is a very old friend of mine as well as being one of the senior Members of the House, and the right hon. Member for South Shields and I have all been in the House long enough to have seen a number of incidents similar to this—only in those cases they were responsible for the conduct of business. I can remember when the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South was Leader of the House and when he had to get up when the Government were defeated, not once, but on more than one occasion, to say what the present Leader of the House will probably have to say, that Her Majesty's Government's

business must go on and that they intend to carry the Bill through. That is what I hope the Leader of the House will say today and that is what the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South and the right hon. Member for South Shields said on more than one occasion.
I admit that we have been caught napping.

Mr. Yates: Where was the hon. Gentleman napping?

Sir P. Macdonald: I had to be in a Committee room upstairs.
The fact remains that we had under discussion a Bill of which I examined every Clause and in which I could find nothing controversial. The Bill has reached its Report stage without controversy and, until a new. Clause was introduced, was about to go through without Division. It is quite obvious that we did not expect the Clause to be read a Second time. Whether or not it can be called a snap Division, I never had any notice of the Clause whatever. When a proposed new Clause is introduced in connection with a Bill which has had a Second Reading and has reached the Report stage, we should have notice of it.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I am sorry repeatedly to have to correct the hon. Member. The Clause was put on the Amendment Paper last Thursday.

Sir P. Macdonald: The fact remains that it is a proposed new Clause. It is nothing to do with the Bill. The Bill is non-controversial, and it is not surprising that hon. Members on this side, and quite a number of hon. Members opposite, were caught unawares and were not present when the Second Reading of the Clause was moved.
It is also obvious that some consideration should be given to such a Clause. The obvious thing for the Government to do is to ask that further consideration should be given to it in another place. I have seen that course adopted dozens of times, and the Opposition ought to be satisfied if that procedure is adopted now. The best procedure would be for my right hon. Friend to say, "We will consider the Clause in another place," and I hope that that procedure will be proposed by him.
I see no reason why the House should adjourn. The Bill has reached its


Report stage, and it is a non-controversial Measure, apart from the Clause with which we are concerned, which nobody knows very much about. We should go on with the debate, allowing arguments to be put by hon. Members on both sides. There is no reason for adjourning the House.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Although one might not suppose so from some of the speeches of hon. Members opposite, this is an important matter, and the proposed new Clause is an important Clause. It was certainly not sprung upon the House. We discussed it in Committee three weeks ago, and it was tabled as an Amendment for the Report stage last Thursday.
I hope that we shall be able to proceed with our consideration of the Bill without any undue delay. I suppose that by this time the Home Secretary has been able to acquaint himself with what has been happening during his absence. I am certain that if he had been here at the time he would have realised immediately that the gracious and courteous thing to do would be to accept the decision reached upon the first Division, even if, at a later stage, it was necessary to take steps in another place. The Government have treated the House with some discourtesy in this matter.
We are delighted to have the Leader of the House with us. We assume that that means that he has now finished his port and over-ripe pheasant and that when he finds it possible to get up and speak it will mean that the Patronage Secretary has completed his telephoning and that enough of the laggards will have been brought in to give the Government a larger majority in the Division Lobby. I hope that it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to tap the Prime Minister's telephone and ensure that he, too, is present for our deliberations.
The Bill was the Home Secretary's Bill. The hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston), dismissed it as a minor matter, saying that it was not a major Government Bill. But if the hon. Member for Westbury had been here when the Home Secretary moved the Second Reading, he would have realised that it was one of the most important

Measures which has been before the House for many years. It was a major matter of penal reform, and if the hon. Gentleman had heard the throb in the Home Secretary's voice on that occasion he would have been as deeply moved as were hon. Members on this side of the House.
The Bill is one which was presented by the Home Secretary, and the right hon. Gentleman was supported by the Minister of Labour and National Service, the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, the Attorney-General and by the hon. and learned Gentleman who is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Clearly, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has a good alibi for being absent from the House during the discussions on this Bill, but we had no indication that the Home Secretary would not be present.
The Minister of Labour was not present during the discussions on the new Clause and I have not seen the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance all evening. The Attorney-General did pay us a fleeting visit which, although it may have been adequate, could hardly have been regarded as discharging his responsibilities to Her Majesty's Government.
During the debate on the new Clause there were not nearly so many hon. Members opposite present as there are now. This, of course, is a Government Bill. The only hon. Gentleman opposite who took part in our discussions was the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), who said that he had been persuaded by the oratory of the Joint Under-Secretary to change his mind and support the Government in the Division Lobby. All of us remember the way in which the hon. Member for Epsom made passionate speeches against the death penalty during the discussions on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and at a later stage we had the embarrassing experience of listening to the hon. Gentleman telling us why he had changed his mind.

Mr. Rawlinson: If the right hon. Gentleman would care to look at the record——

Mr. William Ross: He is not "right hon."

Mr. Rawlinson: I withdraw the "right hon." and stick to "hon."
If the hon. Gentleman would care to look at the record, he will see that I did not manage to speak on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). In fact, I spoke on the Bill which became law. Before the hon. Gentleman makes such witty remarks I think that he should check his facts.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Greenwood: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have been listening to what I said. I said that the hon. Gentleman supported the Measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne——

Mr. Rawlinson: I did not.

Mr. Greenwood: In that case, I withdraw. But I remember very well that when the Homicide Bill was under discussion the hon. Gentleman told us how, originally, he had been opposed to capital punishment, but was then prepared to accept the proposals——

Mr. Rawlinson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he is totally wrong. If he would care to check his facts and his references, he will see that I said I found myself when I spoke in that debate—having had some considerable experience of the matter—in some difficulty about making up my mind on it, for what I believed to be very good and sincere reasons. I came to a conclusion and I gave my reasons to the House. The hon. Gentleman has no right whatever to attribute ideas or comments to me which I never had or never made.

Mr. Greenwood: If I have been unjust to the hon. Member, I withdraw and apologise to him. I thought that I was paying a tribute to his flexibility of approach to these matters by pointing out that on the previous occasion he had changed his mind.
But if the hon. Gentleman was rigid on that occasion, and has been persuaded now by the oratory of the Joint Under-Secretary, it is clear that it is only the hon. and learned. Gentleman's oratory that has persuaded him; it certainly could not have been the reasons adduced by the Joint Under-Secretary, any more than it was possible to accept those reasons when

the Joint Under-Secretary brought them forward during the Committee stage discussions on the Bill.
The Bill is highly technical, difficult to discuss and to understand. We have heard only one Government supporter speak tonight on the merits of the new Clause and he was extremely critical of it. In the Committee we had the assistance of only four back benchers on the Government side and of them one spoke and voted against his own party. Therefore, this is a Bill about which there is a considerable clash of opinion and upon which we should have liked to have heard more from Government supporters. If we proceed with this highly technical Bill in the atmosphere which has been created it will be impossible to recapture that judicial calm in which such an important Government Measure as this should be debated, although it is not important from the party political point of view.
Tonight, we have seen another manifestation of the malaise which has affected the Government and the Conservative Party. It is an unprecedented situation that the Government should have failed to account for at least 61 of their members, and were unable to bring them into the Division Lobby, and without those hon. Members having made some arrangement for pairing with my hon. Friends on this side of the House. It shows a tremendous diminution of loyalty of Government supporters towards their Government. For a long time the Government have been discredited. It is clear that their party is now demoralised. I believe that the public knows it and that is why the Tory vote is slumping. I am sure that the electorate at Kelvin-grove tomorrow will know what to make of the conduct of the Government tonight.

9.22 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): If we look at the remarks of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) against the background of the Bill we can easily discount the rather poor attempt at politics in which he has been indulging. It is, of course, customary on these occasions to try to capitalise an incident to the maximum of its potential capacity, but we should remember that we are considering tonight a Bill which, up to now.


I understood that Opposition Members regarded as a Measure of social reform. When they choose to indulge on this occasion in purely party-political tactics the country will have some idea what to think of it.
I address myself to the situation as I find it, which is that a Division called on a proposed new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Rossendale and his hon. Friends. It was discussed at length in Standing Committee, and I am fully familiar with the contents of it. The discussion can be referred to in col. 340 of the Standing Committee Report. When the matter was considered an undertaking was given—that is why I mentioned the column number—that these matters would be considered. I was fully aware of this situation.
Some play was made of the fact that I myself was not present at the debate. I was present up to about twenty minutes past seven, and then I went to have a meal, which I believe is still a normal perquisite of Cabinet Ministers. I understand that it is the fashion today that the burdens on Ministers should be in some way alleviated. I hope that this burden can be alleviated in so far as to permit them entirely to leave a Joint Under-Secretary or two to carry a normal Clause through Parliament.
The hon. Member referred to my eating ripe pheasant and drinking port. That is an old joke which was much favoured by the Daily Mirror at one time. I should like to tell the House quite frankly what I was doing this evening. I have decided that I should tell the House because the more frankness we have in public affairs the better off we shall be. I decided to accept an invitation from the London School of Economics, of which I am a Governor, to have a meal there at half-past seven and to return immediately after the meal to the debate here. I said that a debate was going on upon a Bill in which I was much interested. On arrival at the London School of Economics I informed them of this.
Before leaving for my short interval, I met the Leader of the Opposition and informed him where I was going. He seemed to think that that was a very respectable venue. Any credentials the right hon. Member has in public life are

derived from institutions of that sort. If the Leader of the House is temporarily in such respectable society that must be a source of great satisfaction to him and his friends. On arrival there, we had a short discussion about the Truck Acts. We considered in the short interval before having a little to eat whether this Bill in any way resembles the Truck Acts. In so far as I could understand the first learned professor with whom I talked, it appeared that the Bill was not on all fours with the Truck Acts. Therefore, I think there is all the more reason why we should continue with the Bill and make progress.
The Question before the House is, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned." That is why I considered that I ought to mention the merits of the Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Rossendale. I will not go into it in detail because the arguments about the Clause were put absolutely clearly by the Joint Under-Secretary. I entirely support every word my hon. and learned Friend said this evening. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman was not here."] I have had a full account of what he said. I entirely endorse the efficient way in which he conducted the debate in Committee upstairs, aided by my hon. Friend the other Joint Under-Secretary. That being the position, let us examine the Clause. The Clause says:
Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment, a magistrates' court may at any time discharge an order which it has made for the committal of any person to prison for failure to comply with a maintenance order.
There may be cases where that would be useful and important. At present such a man can be released only on the instructions of the Secretary of State. It is the practice to give the necessary instructions if it is established that his wife wants it and the court agrees. What hon. Members wanted was to make that part of the statute law. We have considered this—

Mr. J. Paton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman after such a long interval before we got him on his feet, but is it in order, in replying to a Motion for the adjournment of the consideration of the Bill, for the right hon. Gentleman to traverse arguments on the Clause, which was defeated by vote?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think that is relevant to the question of whether the House should adjourn consideration of the Bill. The point on which the question was raised of whether the House should adjourn its discussion or not was that this Clause, apparently, met with very varied fortunes in the Division Lobby. I think the Minister is entitled to show that, in fact, this is a matter that can be discussed and finished with.

Mr. Paton: Further to that point of order. Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Home Secretary is traversing arguments used in the debate and that there could be no opportunity for us on the Opposition side to discuss what he is now introducing? Is it not, therefore, quite unfair that we should have what, in effect, are after-thoughts of the right hon. Gentleman upon a Clause which I said was defeated, but which I meant was carried against the Government? Surely that is quite out of order on the Question now before the House?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is out of order. The right hon. Gentleman who was addressing the House is the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, in technical language. He is arguing why, on this score, consideration should not be adjourned. I have not heard him develop his argument yet. If I heard more of it I should be able to deal with it.

Mr. V. Yates: Further to that point of order. I raised this question with your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary has been supplied with reports of the speeches made by his hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, but, apparently, he has not been supplied with reports of the speeches made from this side of the House. If he is to restate the Government's case, shall we be in order subsequently in discussing the Clause? We are asking that the House should adjourn.

Mr. Speaker: I am not as sure as the hon. Member seems to be of what the Leader of the House intends to say. I think the House should listen a bit more to what he intends to say.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. You said, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman addressing the House was the Minister in charge of the Bill.

That is not so. He was not in charge of the Bill at that time. I suggest, with great respect to you, that he has returned to address the House not as the Minister in charge of the Bill but as Leader of the House dealing with an Adjournment Motion. It is my submission that he is traversing the whole ground on which the Joint Under-Secretary of State replied about five times from the Box. The Joint Under-Secretary of State failed to convince the House and the Government were defeated.
I respectfully suggest that we are concerned with an Adjournment Motion moved, in effect, so that the Government should take notice of the fact that they have been rebuked by the Legislature. We have proposed that the House should adjourn because of the defeat. What is before the House is not this relatively unimportant Clause—relatively unimportant in this context—but a rebuke to the Government. I submit that in replying to the debate the right hon. Gentleman is patently out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I take a different view. The Question which is before the House is not, "That this House do now adjourn." It is, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned." As I understood, the right hon. Gentleman was proceeding to show why it should not be adjourned, and in a matter of that sort I think he is entitled to say what he can about the question which is disturbing the House.

Mr. McAdden: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that before you returned to the Chair I raised this point of order in respect of a speech made by the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates), who was advancing arguments upon the Question which seemed to me to be relevant to the new Clause on which a vote had been taken by the House. Your predecessor took the view that it was right and proper upon the Question, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned," to consider all aspects of the matter, particularly those affected by the vote which had been taken.

Mr. Speaker: On these occasions, which happen infrequently in the House, discussion is apt to range over a wide variety of topics. The by-election at


Kelvingrove was mentioned in one speech and I cannot see what that has to do directly with maintenance orders. I must ask the House to allow me a little discretion in this matter to hear the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Herbert Butler: Further to that point of order. Do I take it, Mr. Speaker, that you propose to allow the right hon. Gentleman to discuss the new Clause on which the Government have been defeated on the basis that he is entitled to go all over the Bill again because the Adjournment of the House has been moved?

Mr. Speaker: I am making no such sweeping pronouncement. I am merely saying that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to argue against the Question, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned," and that I should like to hear his arguments.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have certainly profited by these interventions. My reference to the Clause was solely out of courtesy. I thought that before hon. Members decided on their attitude to the Question they would like some idea of what the Government thought about the Clause. The Clause is not to be added to the Bill. A casting vote has been given to the effect that it shall not be added to the Bill. I thought that hon. Members might like to hear the attitude of the Government on this Clause. If hon. Members do not wish to hear that, or if they think it is out of order, I will restrict my remarks to the absolute minimum and add only one sentence on the subject of this Clause.
If a magistrates' court were to have the power to discharge the committal of a maintenance order defaulter, it must have the power to discharge the committal of a civil debtor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] We do not think that this Bill would carry the discharge of a committal of a civil debtor, and we therefore think that a new Clause of this sort would have to take its place in a general magistrates' courts Bill.
It is impossible to introduce such a Bill this Session, and I can give no undertaking that such a Bill will be introduced next Session, but I am considering this matter in the rather wider canvass of a magistrates' courts Bill. That is why

I do not want to accept this new Clause, because in this Bill it cannot be dealt with properly. These were the main reasons for resisting the new Clause, and why it will not be added to the Bill.
To carry the matter further, it is clear that, while the House has decided that the new Clause shall not be added to the Bill in this House, it is legitimate for the matter to be discussed in another place. The Government will be quite ready to discuss it in another place and to give their view and consider the arguments. If, again, the Government decide that the arguments in favour of the new Clause, if moved in another place, are quite valid, equally I give the undertaking that I shall consider this point in dealing with the general magistrates' courts Bill, which I should like to have the opportunity of considering before I introduce it.
I give this undertaking to the House to show that, whatever the merits of the new Clause, the Government do not intend to treat it with contempt, but that we have a perfectly valid reason for not inserting it in this Bill. It is in that atmosphere, and against that background, that I ask hon. Members opposite, and the House as a whole, to realise that this is a serious Bill, a serious Measure of social reform. I do not think that, when a serious answer has been given—as was given by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary, and as I myself have given now—the House will think that the Government are in any way trying to avoid the issue on this new Clause or any other.

Mr. MacDermot: Would the Home Secretary explain to the House what is the reason—because this is what we have been anxious to find out from the Under-Secretary in discussing the new Clause—why the Government now say that if this power is given to magistrates in relation to maintenance orders the same power must be given in relation to committals for civil debts?
The two jurisdictions of the magistrates are quite separate. These two jurisdictions are already distinguished in law in the Magistrates' Courts Act. If the Home Secretary will look up the Third Schedule of the Magistrates' Courts Act, he will see that there are separate powers, and separate penalties prescribed


for magistrates to impose in cases of civil debt and in cases of maintenance orders. We have not yet had any explanation of this categorical statement by the Government why, if the one is done, they must also do the other.

Mr. Butler: The reason is that we have to take the procedure as we find it, and knowing that it would create anomalies if we were not to deal with the civil debt aspect at the same time as the maintenance orders aspect, we do not think this Bill a proper vehicle for a new Clause of this kind.
I do not think that this is a proposal which should be pressed, in view of the perfectly valid arguments against it. The arguments are quite sincere, and I have told the House that there are further opportunities for considering the matter. This is not, in my opinion, a matter of very great principle, though it is a matter which should be further pursued. It is against that background that this Question, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned," should not be carried, and it is not the Government's view that it should be.
It is our view that we should make further progress, within reason—we do not want to be unreasonable—with the Bill. I trust that if I again repeat that this is a Bill that I should have thought all sides of the House would have regarded as an important Measure of reform, we could agree that this Motion could be withdrawn, and that we could make reasonable progress with the remainder of the Bill.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has made an agreeable speech, and one which, I am sure, he wished to be conciliatory. He seemed to be, if I may say so, in that good humour which discomfiture on previous occasions has often bred in him, but I wonder if, with all his desire to satisfy the House, he has really met the point at issue, which is this. We are discussing a Question, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned." We are doing so, because of the unusual happening that a Government with a majority of between 60 and 70 have been defeated.
The hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) argued, if I followed him

aright, that we should not make very much of that; that Government defeats should be treated almost as every-day affairs. While the present Government are in power, many of us would share that view, and would endeavour to cooperate with him in bringing about that state of affairs; but the fact is that, as we all know, we do not, in this country, conduct our affairs on that basis.
It is part of the general structure of our government that, normally, a Government with a majority of 60 or 70 can, if they really decide that they cannot make a concession, expect to get their own way. It is fair to conclude that if, even on what might be regarded as an unusual occasion, a Government with that majority are defeated, it is something out of the ordinary. It is, therefore, reasonable to say to a Government who have suffered such a defeat, "You should look at this matter again."
It is not entirely accident or coincidence that when a Government have a majority of 70, they find themselves unable to command a majority in the House on a particular issue. The hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) says that he was converted, almost at the last minute, to vote with the Government. That is very interesting because, had the Under-Secretary of State been a little more open, he would, perhaps, have converted a few more hon. Members and secured a Government victory.
What happened was that the Government were faced with an issue on which their own supporters did not feel sufficiently strongly, and on which their opponents did feel sufficiently strongly to cause, first, a defeat, and then a Division, in which the Government only scraped through with an equality of votes on both sides and the casting vote of the Chair. When that happens, is it unreasonable to say to the Government, "You really ought to look at this again, and you ought to take a little time to look at it again"?
Naturally, after a Government defeat everyone is excited. It would be an exaggeration to say that on this occasion tempers rose, but there is a general excitement, an amount of glee on one side of the House, of distress on the other, and of agitation on the part of the Chief Whip. In an atmosphere like that, the rather important question raised


by the new Clause cannot have the clear consideration that it should receive. If, at that moment, the Government are asked to pronounce on the merits of the Clause, that question is inevitably tied to the question of their own prestige.
All that we are asking then, is that this should be left until tomorrow. By that time, the Government will have recovered from their momentary shock; we shall, regretfully, have to accept the position that despite our victory today, the Government are still in power for a little longer, and both sides will be able to look at the merits of the Clause a little more clearly. What has happened? The Home Secretary has tried to deal with the merits of the Clause here and now, in the heat and excitement of the debate following a Government defeat. That led him to put forward an argument for the rejection of the new Clause which had not been fully advanced to the House before, an argument which certainly is puzzling to laymen and which, as we gathered from my hon. Friend the Member Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) and from other lawyer Members of the House, I think, does not immediately commend itself to lawyers either.
As I as a layman understood it, it was that, if we give magistrates power A, we must automatically give them power B also; it would not be reasonable to include power B in the Bill, and, therefore, we should not give them power A or power B. Why should we assume that if we give them the power of release in the one case we must give it in the other? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is not a self-evident proposition. It is not a proposition which we should be asked to accept at such short notice. Is not that the kind of point on which it would be reasonable, and showing proper respect for the House, to say, "Let us leave it until tomorrow, when we shall

all be able to consider exactly what is at issue in the new Clause"?

That is really all we are asking for in the Motion—time to clear away the dust of battle in the Division Lobbies, so that both sides may weigh up the arguments a little more carefully and the House can reach a sober decision. Surely, that is not very much to ask. Indeed, the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald), in the course of his speech, came very near to making that proposal. I only wish that he were here at this moment to support me in urging upon the Home Secretary that he should take this very reasonable course.

After all, what is lost? We do not really hold up the business of the House. If we adjourn consideration of the Bill, we proceed next, I believe, to the ordinary Adjournment debate for tonight, no doubt, to the great gratification of the hon. Member who has the Adjournment, and the particular subject chosen will be debated a little more fully than usual.

We could easily fit in further discussion of the Bill. I am quite sure that hon. Members on both sides would be willing, even at a little inconvenience, to spend further time on some other evening discussing this Bill rather than see a quite important new Clause, on which opinion is evenly divided in the House, hurriedly disposed of at an inappropriate moment when the House is really thinking a little more about the relative prestige of Government and Opposition than about the real merit of the new Clause.

I therefore plead with the Home Secretary to look at the matter again. From what he said, it appears that further legal advice would be helpful. Can not we leave it to another day?

Question put, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned:—

The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 153.

Division No. 69.]
AYES
[9.50 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Awbery, S. S.
Caliaghan, L. J.
Deer, G.


Bacon, Miss Afice
Champion, A. J.
de Freltas, Geoffrey


Benson, Sir George
Chelwynd, G. R.
Diamond, John


Blackburn, F.
Clunie, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Boardman, H.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fletcher, Eric


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Cove, W. G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Boyd, T. C.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gibson, C. W.




Gooch, E. G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Royle, C.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Short, E. W.


Grey, C. F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mason, Roy
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mayhew, C. P.
Skeffington, A. M.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mikardo, Ian
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Hastings, S.
Moody, A. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hayman, F. H.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Herbison, Miss M.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Steele, T.


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Mort, D. L.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Holman, P.
Moss, R.
Stonehouse, John


Holmes, Horace
Moyle, A.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Holt, A. F.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Oram, A. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, M.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hunter, A. E.
Owen, W. J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Usborne, H. C.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Watkins, T. E.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Weitzman, D.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Parker, J.
West, D. G.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Paton, John
Wheeldon, W. E.


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Peart, T. F.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pentland, N.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Prentice, R. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Probert, A. R,
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


King, Dr. H. M.
Proctor, W. T,
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Lawson, G. M.
Randall, H. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Redhead, E. C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


MacColl, J. E.
Reeves, J.
Woof, R. E.


MacDermot, Niall
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Zilliacus, K.


McInnes, J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)



McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McLeavy, Frank
Ross, William
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kirk, P. M.


Aitken, W. T.
Gammans, Lady
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Alport, C. J. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Arbuthnot, John
Glover, D.
McAdden, S. J.


Armstrong, C. W.
Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Baldwin, A. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus
McKibbin, Alan


Barber, Anthony
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Barter, John
Grimond, J.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. C.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maddan, Martin


Bingham, R. M.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hay, John
Mathew, R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mawby, R. L.


Bryan, P.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Neave, Airey


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Carr, Robert
Hornby, R. P.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Channon, Sir Henry
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Oakshott, H. D.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Page, R. G.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hurd, A. R.
Partridge, E.


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Peel, W. J.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitman, I. J.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pott, H. P.


Dance, J, C. G.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, J. Enoch


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Drayson, G. B.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kaberry, D.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Keegan, D.
Profumo, J. D.


Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rawlinson, Peter


Errington, Sir Eric
Kimball, M.








Redmayne, M.
Storey, S.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Webbe, Sir H.


Renton, D. L. M.
Teeling, W.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Ridsdale, J. E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Roper, Sir Harold
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Woollam, John Victor


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)



Sharples, R. C.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Vickers, Miss Joan
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wade, D. W.
Mr. Finlay.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

9.55 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I desire to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order arising out of the decision given earlier this evening by Mr. Deputy-Speaker in exercising his casting vote. The point I desire to raise brings into question the principle on which the occupant of the Chair casts a casting vote. I should, therefore, like to refer you, Sir, to the latest edition of Erskine May, where the practice, following a number of precedents, is laid down as follows, in page 435:
If the numbers in a division are equal, the Speaker, who otherwise does not vote, must give the casting vote…In the performance of his duty, he is art liberty to vote like any other Member, according to his conscience, without assigning a reason… but, in order to avoid the least imputation upon his impartiality, it is usual for him, when practicable, to vote in such a manner as not to make the decision of the House final, and to explain his reasons…
Now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in giving his casting vote, gave his reason for giving it in favour of the "Noes", that is to say, against the Question that the new Clause which had been passed by the House should be added to the Bill.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker said that the reason why he gave his casting vote in that way was to maintain the status quo, which is in accordance with principle. His reason was, as I understand it, that with a view to preserving the status quo he would vote in such a manner as not to make the decision of the House final.
Therefore, it seems to me that the exercise by Mr. Deputy-Speaker of his casting vote in that way is consistent only with the view that the House will have another opportunity of coming to a decision on whether it wishes the new Clause, to which it gave a Second Reading, to be added to the Bill or not. If the case were that that casting vote produced a final decision in this House, then it seems to me some doubt might arise as to whether the occupant of the

Chair was casting his vote in such a way as not to make the vote final.

There will be opportunities, I imagine, as a result of the decision which has been taken, to enable the House to reach a decision on whether it wants the new Clause added to the Bill. In the recent discussion on the Question whether or not we should adjourn the debate reasons were given on both sides of the House about the merits of the matter. The Leader of the House seemed to suggest that he would consider the matter and, if necessary, enable another place to decide the question. With great respect, it seems to me that that would be a result which would neither be in accordance with precedent nor be in accordance with the rights and privileges of this House.

I therefore ask you to rule, Mr. Speaker, that, following the unusual circumstances in which the casting vote was given in such a way as not to render the decision of the House final, we may have another opportunity—by the matter being put on the Order Paper for another date, I suppose—of discussing whether we want the new Clause added to the Bill or not.

Mr. Speaker: I ought to preface anything I have to say with the remark that Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when in the Chair, is in complete control of the House. He is in the same position as the Speaker. If there is any criticism of his action, it ought to be done in the proper way, by substantive Motion. However, I did not gather that that was the intent of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), and that is why I listened to him.
I think that the hon. Member, if he will excuse my saying so, is mixing up two things. It is indeed one's duty in giving a casting vote so to cast it, if possible—if possible—so that the House shall have another opportunity of considering the matter. On the other hand, at this late stage in the progress of a Bill that is not always possible, and in this case it is not possible.
In these circumstances, another equally valid rule, supported by precedent, for the casting vote comes into play, and that Mr. Deputy-Speaker followed, and I myself should have followed it. It is that when a Bill has emerged from Committee in a certain form which is printed and in the hands of Members, and the House does not agree to alter that form, it is the duty of the occupant of the Chair, if there be a tie, to give his vote in favour of the Bill as it has emerged from Committee, because the House has not positively agreed to change it. That, I think, is the answer to the hon. Member.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a little puzzled by one point which is rather different from what has ever happened previously, to my knowledge, and that is in this case the decision by Mr. Deputy-Speaker did not leave the matter as it was previously, but actually reversed a decision which the House had reached a few minutes earlier. In other words, the House had agreed to a Clause, and when Mr. Deputy-Speaker gave his casting vote he did not bring the situation back to the status quo but actually wiped out a decision to which the House had come a few minutes earlier.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member is, if I may say so, not correct in that. The first Question was, "That the Clause be read a Second time". On that, I understand, the Government were defeated. So that left the Clause read a Second time. But the point at which the House had to decide whether the Bill was to be altered or not was on the second Question, namely, "That the Clause be added to the Bill". That was the Question on which there was a tie. To have voted "Aye" would have altered the Bill, but to vote "No" was in favour of the Bill as it had emerged and that was what Mr. Deputy-Speaker did.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Further to that point of order. Without any reserve, we accept the Ruling which you have just given Mr. Speaker, but the point which I want to put is that the House is clearly now in a most unsatisfactory position. In the course of two hours, there have been three Divisions. In the first, the Opposition defeated the Government

by three votes. In the next, the votes were exactly equal and now, although two hours have elapsed and there has been great activity on the part of the Government Whips—[HON. MEMBERS: "And yours"]—the Government majority is only three.

Mr. Speaker: Order. These may be very interesting considerations, but I do not see what they have to do with me. The House has ordered that we should proceed with the Bill and I was proceeding to do so—unless the hon. Member has a point of order which would lead me to take another course.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Yes, Sir. I was about to come to that. I was about to ask whether it might be possible and for the convenience of the House at this stage, for the Leader of the House to move the adjournment of the discussion so that we could continue with the debate in better circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: No such Motion is before me.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 3 OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS ACT, 1952.)

In paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule to the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, the words "civil debt" shall be construed to include any debt arising from the non-payment of sums due under a maintenance order.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The effect of the Clause is to make the maximum period for which a magistrates' court can commit a person to prison in enforcement of a maintenance order the same as the period in respect of which it can commit a person to prison for civil debt. I hope that, after the somewhat shattering experience which the Government have had in the reception of the last new Clause, they will be disposed to approach this proposal in a rather more constructive and conciliatory frame of mind.
As we learned from the Home Secretary, the reason for the rejection of the last new Clause was that the Government felt that it would produce an anomaly, another anomaly in a matter where there are already many anomalies. The object of this new Clause is to try to remove at least one of the major


anomalies. It is the anomaly that where a maintenance order is enforced by an order for committal in the High Court or in the county court, the maximum period for which a debtor can be imprisoned is six weeks, whereas under the magistrates' court procedure he can be imprisoned for up to three months. There are other differences and other anomalies, one of which is met by one of our Amendments on the Amendment Paper.
In order to explain the reason for the Clause, I want briefly to explain the present anomalies in the law relating to the imprisonment of people for debt. Imprisonment for debt can now arise in three ways. It can arise, first, under Section 4 of the Debtors Act, 1869. As far as I know this course is adopted very rarely in practice. Section 4 contains a general provision for abolishing imprisonment for debt, but certain exceptions are made, keeping alive the power to imprison for a period up to one year. That power still exists. I can give some examples of the ways in which the power can be used. In certain circumstances trustees who have failed to pay moneys to beneficiaries can be imprisoned, and I am sorry to say that my friends, the attorneys and solicitors, may be imprisoned for a period of up to one year for failing to pay costs when ordered to do so, as a result of misconduct; but I am happy to say that there is no similar provision to which other members of the legal profession are liable.
A person can also be imprisoned for debt for up to one year if he fails to pay Estate Duty or Purchase Tax. This provision was introduced by the Crown Proceedings Act. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) would be most interested to know that. The provision does not apply to a failure to pay Income Tax or Surtax. All these matters are outside the sphere with which we are concerned, and I mention them only to show what anomalies still exist.
Secondly, persons can be imprisoned for failure to pay debts under Section 5 of the Debtors Act, which is the normal High Court procedure. There, the maximum period is six weeks, and the committal order is made by way of judgment summons, obtained in the High Court itself—either upon an order

from a bankruptcy judge, or in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. In that case, we come at once to the subject matter of the Bill, namely, maintenance orders.
Many maintenance orders are made in the High Court, including many quite small ones affecting persons of limited means. Those can be enforced by a judgment summons taken out in the Divorce Division of the High Court. More frequently they are enforced by the order being transferred to a county court and a judgment summons being taken out there. The period of imprisonment in that case is limited to six weeks.
In all cases, under the judgment summons procedure the court must be satisfied that the debtor has deliberately refused or has neglected to pay the amount of the debt when he had the means to do so. An important distinction between this power and the power existing under the magistrates' courts procedure is that the imprisonment does not wipe out the debt or the arrears in respect of which the person is imprisoned. It is true that it is provided that neither under the High Court nor the county court procedure can a person be imprisoned twice in respect of the same arrears, but if a debtor gets into arrears again through the non-payment of further instalments he can be imprisoned for a second time, and I am told that it frequently happens.
Thirdly, persons can be imprisoned under the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952. Section 64 of that Act provides for this to be done by way of the ordinary magistrates' court committal order. That course can be adopted in two sorts of circumstances, in respect of two classes of case. The first concerns imprisonment for a civil debt. There are many statutory provisions whereby certain sums are recoverable by summary procedure before magistrates as a civil debt, and in that case the debtor can be imprisoned for varying periods, depending upon the amount of the debt. If it does not exceed 10s. he can be imprisoned for a period of up to seven days; if it does not exceed£1, the limit is fourteen days; if it does not exceed£5 it is one month, and if it exceeds£5 he can be imprisoned for up to six weeks. That is in the case of a civil debt. In other words, the maximum period there is the same as in the judgment summons procedure in the High Court or the county court.
10.15 p.m.
The second class of case is affiliation orders or orders enforceable as affiliation orders. All such orders are maintenance orders within the terms of the Bill we are now discussing. In those cases the maximum period can depend on the amount of the debt. If it does not exceed£20, the maximum period is two months; if it does, the maximum period is three months. The result is that there has always been the anomaly that where a maintenance order was being enforced in the High Court, the husband—I use that term for the purpose of brevity; it is not only husbands with whom we are concerned—was liable to be imprisoned for up to six weeks, whereas in the magistrates' court he was liable to be imprisoned for up to three months.
This anomaly, which I do not think anyone can justify as a matter of principle—it has an historical reason for its origin but it is not a matter of principle—now becomes untenable and intolerable only when we have regard to the effect of Clause 3 (1) of this Bill; because we now have the position that a High Court maintenance order will be enforceable in a magistrates' court, and a magistrates' court maintenance order will be enforceable in the High Court. The result of Clause 3 will be that one and the same order can result in quite different terms of imprisonment, depending on which court it is being enforced in, which is a matter which may arise solely on the decision of the wife and in some instances will not be the decision of the court at all.
If, for example, one gets a High Court maintenance order resulting from normal divorce proceedings in the High Court, the maximum period will be six weeks, but if it is registered in the magistrates' court, then the magistrates will be able to to commit the same husband in respect of the same order for up to three months. This cannot be regarded as an anomaly which in any way does credit to our judicial system.
Secondly, if there is a magistrates' court maintenance order, the magistrates would have the power by way of enforcement to imprison the husband for up to three months, whereas if the wife chooses—and here she has the right as a matter of right—to register the order in the High

Court, the period is limited immediately to six weeks.
I hope we shall not hear again the argument that we heard in opposition to the last Clause, that it would be unsatisfactory to accept the Clause because it would produce an anomaly between the powers of magistrates when dealing with the enforcement of civil debts and their powers when dealing with the enforcement of maintenance orders. Surely that anomaly, if it be such, is a very small matter compared with the wholly unjustifiable and intolerable anomaly which will result if the Clause be not accepted.

Mr. J. Silverman: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) has rightly said that this new Clause would remove an anomaly, unlike the previous new Clause, which would have created an anomaly. The hon. Gentleman has stated his case very fully and I am in general agreement with him. I am grateful to him for putting the detailed arguments on record.
It would be convenient if I could be permitted to refer to a later Amendment to Clause 16, in the name of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), in page 15, line 44, at the end, to insert a new subsection (5), because it deals with arrears being wiped out or not in magistrates' courts and should be considered in conjunction with the new Clause which has just been moved. The converse proposition would also be true, that we should not consider the question of assimilating the maximum periods of imprisonment without considering the effect of being imprisoned at all.
Without labouring the matter too much—we want to make progress—I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North and the hon. Member for Dagenham will take it from me that we have carefully considered the views which they put before the Standing Committee. I mentioned at that time that various discussions would have to take place with outside bodies, especially on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dagenham. These discussions are not complete. I have intimated this privately to the hon. Member for Ro dale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood).
In the circumstances, I invite the hon. Member for Lewisham, North to withdraw his Motion. I undertake that we will, after the completion of the discussions, put down for another place an Amendment suitable to cover the point the hon. Member raised and also, not to anticipate too much, to cover the point raised by the hon. Member for Dagenham. I hope that that will give satisfaction to the House and restore the friendly atmosphere in which, hitherto, we had been conducting the proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. F. Lee: We are grateful for the manner in which the Joint Under-Secretary of State has dealt with the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend. We appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's difficulties and we are grateful for what he has said about an Amendment in another place. I therefore advise my hon. and learned Friend not to press the Motion.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2.—(REGISTRATION OF ORDERS.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, to leave out from the third "the" to the end of line 13 and to insert:
court shall grant the application on being satisfied in the prescribed manner that, at the time when the application was made, an amount equal to not less, in the case of an order for weekly payments, than four or, in any other case, than two of the payments required by the order was due there under and unpaid".
I undertook, in Committee, to consider both the principle and the drafting of subsection (3), which entitles
a person entitled to receive payments under a magistrates' court order who considers that the order could be more effectively enforced
to obtain registration as of course, without applying to a magistrates' court.
The Opposition were concerned lest the person referred to as the vindictive wife, whose spirit brooded over our proceedings upstairs during this part of the Bill, should register an order merely to put her husband to expense and embarrassment in the High Court. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North—and I

was grateful to him at the time—pointed out that, whereas enforcement proceedings in the magistrates' courts were discretionary, a writ of fieri facias could be obtained in the High Court virtually over the counter. He suggested that a wife whose husband had set up another home might be tempted to break it up by putting the bailiffs in.
Two solutions were suggested by the Opposition for overcoming this difficulty. One was to give magistrates' courts complete discretion whether to let the application be made or not and whether there should be reconsideration or not. The other was that there might be a qualifying period of arrears of payment as a pre-condition of granting the application, but that if there were four weeks' arrears, for example, the application should then be granted as of course.
We had to consider those two alternatives. Quite candidly, we prefer the second. We feel there might be quite unnecessary trouble caused by having a complete discretion about registration and possibly a separate hearing would arise. We are impressed with the second suggestion that there should be a pre-condition of a period of arrears and we consider that that is workable.
To embody that suggestion, I am moving this Amendment. The period of default we have chosen is four weeks, which is the same period as that laid down in Clause 6 as the necessary period before an attachment of earnings order can be made. There is consistency there and a great deal of logic to commend the period of four weeks. The effect of the Amendment will be that there will have to have been a clear default under a magistrates' court order of four weeks of payment before the High Court procedures can be invoked by registration. I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to the House.

Mr. J. Silverman: We on this side of the House welcome the Amendment. We are fully prepared to support it, because it meets the case and the arguments we put in Committee. We are glad that we made some impression on the Joint Under-Secretary. If he had been as conciliatory on the first new Clause tonight probably the Government would have saved themselves a great deal of trouble. This Amendment meets the case we put


forward and we feel that without it Part I of the Bill might have introduced a great injustice.

Amendment agreed to.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, to leave out from "proceedings" to the end of line 18 and to insert:
for the enforcement of the order shall be begun before the registration takes place and no warrant or other process for the enforcement thereof shall be issued in consequence of any such proceedings begun before the grant of the application".
This Amendment and the next three Amendments hang together. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you would kindly allow us to discuss these four Amendments together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am quite prepared to allow that if it is for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Renton: This rather formidable looking group of Government Amendments is merely intended to cure a small technical defect in the Bill, to overcome what might otherwise be a slight procedural difficulty. It is not a matter which was discussed in Committee or, indeed, one which occurred to us as being a possible danger until after the Committee stage, when we were reconsidering the Bill.
The position is that where an order is registered under Clause 2, or where the registration is cancelled under Clause 5, it is essential, to avoid an overlap of jurisdiction between those two things, that all existing methods of enforcement should be terminated. In other words, we want to get a clean break in one method of enforcement before we start on another. We do not want any kind of overlapping jurisdiction.
That danger will be avoided if we make these four Amendments to subsection (4) of Clause 2 and to subsection (4) of Clause 5. I could spend a good deal of time explaining to the House in some detail exactly how and why, in the drafting of the words put forward, these Amendments are necessary and how the defects are cured, but I can assure the House, having considered the matter, that they have the effect which I have described.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 26, leave out from "no" to "in" in line 28 and insert:
process for the enforcement of the order issued before the grant of the application remains."—[Mr. Renton.]

Clause 5.—(CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION.)

Amendments made: In page 5, line 43, leave out from "proceedings" to end of line 46 and insert:
for the enforcement of the registered order shall be begun before the cancellation of the registration and no writ, warrant or other process for the enforcement thereof shall be issued in consequence of any such proceedings begun before the giving of the notice".

In page 6, line 9, leave out from "no" to "in" in line 11 and insert:
process for the enforcement of the registered order isued before the giving of the notice remains".—[Mr. Renton.]

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I wonder, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether, at this stage, you would allow me to move, "That the debate be now adjourned" so that we can have an opportunity of knowing what the Government's intentions are. We are now embarking upon the most controversial part of the Bill, on an Amendment to which there will be further Amendments. It would, I think, help us if we knew the Government's intentions.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can raise the matter on the Question, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."

Mr. Greenwood: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I do not want to be unreasonable with the Opposition. I did not imagine that this particular Amendment, although there are some Amendments to my proposed Amendment, was particularly controversial. I was proposing to continue until such time as we found there was a controversial issue which it was not convenient to discuss at this time of night, in which case I should not insist on taking it this evening. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that his hon. Friends regard this as a major issue, then I will pay attention to what he says.
If, as I apprehend, the next Amendment to be called is to Clause 6, page 6, line 36, I think that we could deal with that and the following Amendment in line 43, as well as the proposed Opposition Amendments to it. However, I am willing to consider with the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) any question of a major issue which he would prefer to be discussed at an earlier hour.

Mr. Greenwood: I moved the Motion to try to get some clarification of the Government's intentions. I think that it would be suitable for us to carry on until we reach more controversial matters. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6.—(POWERS OF COURTS TO MAKE ORDERS ATTACHING THE EARNINGS OF PERSONS WHOSE PAYMENTS UNDER MAINTENANCE ORDERS ARE IN ARREAR.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 36, at the end to insert:
then, subject to the next following subsection".
This is really a clearing Amendment for the more substantial one which follows, in line 43, to insert a new subsection (2).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it might be to the convenience of the House if we were to discuss both Amendments together.

Mr. Renton: I ought to mention that there will be a consequential Amendment to Clause 7, in page 8, line 25, after "unpaid", to insert:
then, subject to subsection (2) of that section

Mr. Lee: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would you agree that the Amendments in the names of my hon. Friends relating to this subject could be discussed at the same time?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It might be better to discuss the Amendments to the Amendment separately.

Mr. Renton: I suggest that we should see whether the House accepts the main Amendment, and then we could consider separately the proposed Amendments to that main Amendment, because they raise

a much narrower point which could conveniently be dealt with separately.
I gave an undertaking in Committee, which is to be found at column 147 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that I would move an Amendment on Report to provide a safeguard against the making of an attachment of earnings order where the payments under the maintenance order had fallen into arrears through no fault of the defendant. We had a very full discussion about this in Committee. I must confess that the line which I originally took was that I was prepared to leave it to the discretion of the magistrates. I felt that they would take into consideration everything that was said on both sides of the case and come to a just conclusion. I felt that there might be pitfalls about the onus of proof if the Amendments suggested by the Opposition in Committee were accepted.
Together with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, I have given this matter considerable thought, and the Amendment which I am moving is the result. What we have done is this. We have, as was suggested, considered the precedent which is to be found in Section 74 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, which requires the court, on the hearing of a complaint of arrears, to
inquire whether the default of the defendant was due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect
and which provides that, if the court is of opinion that the default was not so due, no warrant of commitment shall be issued. That is a useful analogy.
Our Amendments follow that conception as closely as possible, or perhaps I should say, as closely as is appropriate to the circumstances of this Bill. The effect, therefore, is to prevent an attachment of earnings order being made under either Clause 6 or Clause 7, if the defendant satisfies the court that the default was not due to his
wilful refusal or culpable neglect.
The onus will, of course, be upon him to prove that. It would be impossible to place the onus upon the wife, because she would not have the knowledge of the facts which would enable her to show that there was no wilful refusal or culpable neglect. It is for the defendant, who has the knowledge of his own behaviour, doings and circumstances, to


show, if he is able to do so, that it was not due to default on his part. We have left it in such a way that the onus is clearly on the defendant. I hope that the House considers that this is the right way for us to deal with the matter.

Mr. J. Silverman: I take it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I should not move my Amendment at this point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be best to discuss the substance of the Minister's Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: We on this side of the House accept the principle of the Amendment which we believe is a substantial concession. We are very glad that the Joint Under-Secretary of State has paid serious consideration to the very forcible arguments advanced in Committee. The Amendment improves the Bill considerably. I hope that we shall improve it still further when we reach my Amendment.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I want to endorse the gratitude expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) to the Minister. We appreciate the manner in which the Government have gone some way to meet us on this point. I should remind the House of the reasons why we fought hard on this issue in Standing Committee and why we are especially grateful that even at this late hour the Government have conceded the force of the arguments which we advanced in Committee. I do so because not everybody reads the OFFICIAL REPORT of Standing Committees and we should put in the OFFICIAL REPORT Of the House the reasons which led us to fight hard on this issue.
The wording moved by the hon. and learned Member is acceptable to us. It is slightly different from the Amendment which we proposed in Committee, but it contains the key words which we regard as of the greatest importance—"wilful refusal or culpable neglect".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is the hon. Member dealing with the correct Amendment?

Mr. Greenwood: I am dealing with the Amendment which the Minister has moved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is the Amendment in line 36.

Mr. Renton: In moving it, I asked that we should also discuss the Amendment in line 43 which is the substantive Amendment. The Amendment in line 36 is merely a clearing Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the House agrees, the simplest thing would be to pass the clearing Amendment now.

Mr. Greenwood: I understood, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that when the hon. and learned Member proposed that we should discuss the two Amendments together you indicated that that course was acceptable to you. My hon. Friends and I have proceeded on that assumption.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am in some difficulty because there is an Amendment to the Minister's Amendment, in line 43. The simplest course would be to pass now the Amendment in line 36.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 6, line 43, at end insert:
(2) The court shall not make an attachment of earnings order if the defendant satisfies the court that the failure to make payments in accordance with the maintenance order in question was not due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect—[Mr. Renton.]

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: Throughout the discussions we have proceeded with two principal aims in mind. One was to ensure that the woman entitled to benefit under a maintenance order got the benefit to which she was entitled and the second was to ensure that any machinery which was created was not unduly oppressive of the husband in cases of this kind. We therefore considered three possible ways of doing it. The first was to extend the period of arrears which had to accrue before an attachment of income order could be obtained. The second was to limit the period for which orders were valid, without being specifically renewed by the court, and the third was to provide that attachment orders could be issued only in cases of wilful refusal or culpable neglect.
We rejected the first two alternative courses of action—one of them after considerable debate in the Standing Committee, and the other without bothering to trouble the Committee with it—because we felt that both courses might make it still more difficult to get at the sort of person that everyone was agreed


we wanted to get at. We therefore restricted ourselves to the third course of action, which was to seek to restrict attachment orders to men who had wilfully defaulted in their obligations, or were guilty of culpable neglect.
Those were the motives that lay behind the proposals that we made in the Standing Committee. We were sorry, at the time, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not able to accept them, but we do express our appreciation to -him for having met them now.

Mr. J. Silverman: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "the defendant satisfies." and to insert, "it appears to."

Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether we could deal both with this Amendment and that which follows it, after "failure", to insert, "of the defendant".

Mr. Silverman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to do so, because both deal with substantially the same point.
While we accept the principle of and are grateful for, the concession made by the Minister, I think that if the Under-Secretary considers our reasons for this Amendment to his proposed Amendment he will agree that ours improves his. As his Amendment stands, the defendant must satisfy the court, and the implication of that is that he must be present, and must produce arguments, facts or evidence that satisfies the court.
In a large number of cases that may not be so. For instance, the defendant may be at work and find it difficult to get away. He may be in hospital, when we will have the anomalous situation that even if it comes to the notice of the court that the defendant is in hospital, and, therefore, cannot be expected to attend, the magistrates may well say—they are, indeed, entitled to say, if the Government Amendment is accepted as it stands—that the defendant has not satisfied them because he has not attended. That is the reason for our Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that these words follow the principle, even if not the precise wording, of Section 74 (6) of the Magistrates' Courts Act. That subsection says:
On the hearing of a complaint under this section the court shall inquire whether the

default of the defendant was due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect; and, if it is of opinion that the default was not due to such refusal or neglect as aforesaid, it shall not issue a warrant of commitment to enforce payment of the sum due.
In substance, that embodies the same principle as is contained in our Amendment. The object is simply to ensure that the defendant himself does not have to be present in court. Even if it is suggested that our wording makes no difference, it is, at any rate, an indication to the magistrates as to how they should act.
Obviously it would be grossly unjust if, just because a defendant was not present or could not be present, the magistrates should automatically decide to make an order. I suggest that we are proposing a reasonable addition which will improve the Minister's Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I hope that we may persuade the hon. and learned Gentleman—a moment ago I thought I saw him shake his head in a negative fashion—that our Amendments are reasonable ones.
When addressing the House on his last Amendment, the Minister said that it would not be possible to put the burden of proof on the wife to show that the husband had means to pay. I would call his attention to the procedure in the High Court and county court under a judgment summons. This is precisely what happens there. The burden of proof is put on the wife, hut there is power for the court to compel a husband to attend and answer on oath so that the wife may get at the facts and prove them to the court.

The wording of Section 5 of the Debtors Act, 1869, is:
That such jurisdiction"—
that is, jurisdiction to make a committal order—
shall only be exercised where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the person making default either has or has had since the date of the order or judgment the means to pay the sum in respect of which he has made default, and has refused or neglected or refuses or neglects, to pay the same.
The burden is clearly on the wife. It goes on:
Proof of the means of the person making default may be given in such manner as the court thinks just; and for the purposes of


such proof the debtor and any witnesses may be summoned and examined on oath, according to the prescribed rules.
As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, when we come to the existing procedure in magistrates' courts the burden is not put on the defendant of satisfying the court negatively of the reasons why no order should be made. It is left to the court to inquire, and the wording is "if the court is of opinion"—which is comparable to our words "if it appears to the court". The burden of proof is not cast on either side; the matter is quite open. If as a result of the evidence laid by the wife it is clear that it is not a proper case in which to make an order, the magistrates have power to act on that evidence.
So far from our Amendments introducing any new procedure or principle, the Minister's Amendment as it stands is the one which does that. The casting of a burden on the defendant is something which does not exist at the moment in the High Court or county court under the judgment summons procedure, and it does not exist under Section 74 of the Magistrates' Courts Act. I trust that our Amendments will be accepted.

Mr. Rawlinson: The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) has put his case far too high. The fact that the burden is put upon the defendant in the circumstances of the Minister's Amendment seems to me to be very much more sensible.
The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) said that the defendant might not be there, that there might be some physical or other difficulties. Those are procedural difficulties which could easily be overcome. The fact that the man is not there does not mean that the burden cannot be discharged by him or by those who appear for him or by the manner in which the matter is placed before the court.
Putting the onus upon the defendant is not a strange principle in English law. I should have thought it was perfectly proper in this case that the onus to satisfy the court should be put upon the defendant.
I appreciate what has been said about using "appears to" in place of the words

taken from the Magistrates' Courts Act, but I think that this privilege—and it is a privilege which is being given to defendants—should be matched by putting a burden on defendants. [An HON. MEMBER: "Privilege?"] It is a privilege which people will get in not being sent to prison. [Laughter.] I support the Bill, but although hon. Members let go with hearty guffaws, I must remind them that many gentlemen will be giving hearty guffaws when the Bill becomes law, because it will be to their advantage—as it will be to everybody's advantage. It is most sensible legislation for which we are partly indebted to a distinguished hon. Lady on this side of the House.
With great respect, while appreciating the argument of hon. Members opposite, I think that they have put it too high. I think that the burden of proof should be put fairly and squarely on the defendant and in all reasonable circumstances he will be able to discharge it, and if he is not able so to do, he will be the sufferer.

Mr. Ede: I feel more comfortable now, for my personal friendship with the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) is now tinged with our usual political hostility.
I speak as one who was for many years a magistrate dealing with these matters at magistrates' courts level. The highly legalistic arguments which can be adduced on this kind of matter tend to disappear in the atmosphere in which a matrimonial court meets, especially when neither side has lawyers to misrepresent the case. It then remains for the court to find out from the two people involved what is the position between them.
It is unreasonable to insert a requirement, as the Government have done, that the defendant should satisfy the court on a negative. That is bad in itself. One has to make up one's mind from exchanges between the parties and the answers the magistrates get, when they get an opportunity of getting a word in edgeways between the wife and the husband.
Anyone who has been a magistrate dealing with these things knows that these cases are some of the most lengthy and some of the most difficult in which to arrive at the truth. I doubt whether


it is possible to get beyond the words "it appears to the court" which my hon. Friends propose to insert. That is the way in which most of these matters are resolved. It is true that one is some- times helped when there are arrears and the woman has secured that the money shall be paid through the court. The officer who is responsible can then some- times ask some very pertinent questions and be of great help to the court.
I implore the Government not to make these proceedings so formal that, in the end, their very formality defeats the ends of justice. These courts are a very valuable addition to the machinery of the law in these matters. I was a magistrate for such a long period that I remember the time before these courts were established. I know the problems that then existed, when the matter had to come before the whole of the bench in public, to the great amusement, on occasion, of the people who had collected in the court to listen to the matrimonial squabble.
The great value of these courts has been that the matter is dealt with in formally in such a way as to enable justice to be done and the truth to be discovered. To insert such words as
the defendant satisfies the court
may make it exceedingly difficult to pre- serve the atmosphere which has been the distinguishing feature of these courts throughout their history.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I told the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) that if such an issue as this arose it would be unwise to pursue it further tonight. Rather than do that I would prefer that I should move, "That the debate be now adjourned," so that we can start again on a fresh day. My hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under Secretary explained some of the difficulties involved in this matter. We do not want to put the burden upon the applicant; we think that it would be very difficult for her to prove. Equally, we want to meet the desire of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—with his life-long experience of magistrates' courts—that there should be

as much discretion and as little rigidity as possible. To find the truth of the matter I think that we had better adjourn the debate. I therefore beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr. V. Yates: On a point of order. I apologise, to you, Mr. Speaker, but I was not present when the Home Secretary spoke about the proposed new Clauses. If we adjourn the debate tonight, am I to understand that the proposed new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) will not be discussed in the House? It deals with a very controversial matter, and some of us would like to say something about it. I was informed that this would be discussed in another place and not here.

Mr. Butler: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Member. I think that he is referring to the Amendment—not Clause—in page 15, line 44, at end insert:
(5) Section seventy-five of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, shall be amended by the addition of the following words at the end of the section "but subject to any order which may be made under the next succeeding section the arrears due at the date on which the person is committed to custody shall continue to be due and payable notwithstanding the person has been committed to custody and has remained in custody for the whole of the period for which he was committed".

Mr. Yates: Yes.

Mr. Butler: My hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary referred to it in advance because it hung together with a previous matter that we were discussing. According to the rules of the House there is nothing to prevent the Amendment from being on the Notice Paper when it is next printed. We have simply made an advance reference to it in saying that we should like to meet the point. The Government have given an assurance that they want to meet the point. It can, therefore, be discussed when we consider the Bill again—and I think that it can be discussed in a very amicable manner.

Question put and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.